IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13058 of 2010 Between: Padala Nagaraju … Petitioner And Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam II Town Police Station, Khammam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13058 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the suspect sheet bearing No.19 of 2003 dated 07.01.2003 against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner is a resident of Papatapalli, Khammam Town. He was involved in two criminal cases i.e., S.C.Nos.187 of 2005 and 61 of 2006. According to the petitioner, both the said cases ended in his acquittal in the year 2007 itself and that after his acquittal he was not involved in commission of any fresh offence. The petitioner has pleaded that he is leading a peaceful life and that in spite of the same, the police have not closed the suspect sheet. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that S.C.No.187 of 2005, in which the petitioner was the accused, ended in his acquittal on 30.08.2007 and that similarly S.C.No.61 of 2006 was also disposed of on 16.08.2007 by acquitting the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was not involved in fresh offences and that in order to curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, the suspect sheet is being continued in the public interest. The facts noted above show that except the sessions cases, referred to above, which ended in the petitioner’s acquittal as far back as the year 2007, no offence of any significance has been registered against him. In my opinion, mere fact that the petitioner was bound over on some occasions will not constitute a legitimate ground for continuing the suspect sheet. Though the police are charged with the duty to maintain public order by keeping track on the criminals and having surveillance over their activities, continuing suspect/rowdy sheets on the ex-convicts only on the ground of their past criminal record would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless there is material to show that the persons with past criminal record are continuing with their criminal activities, there can be no justification for the police to continue the suspect/rowdy sheets merely on account of their past history. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that in the absence of any complaint against the petitioner leading to registration of criminal cases except bind over cases, continuing suspect sheet against him for three years after his acquittal cannot be sustained in law. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any justification for the respondents to continue the suspect sheet against the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to close the suspect sheet with liberty to them to reopen the suspect sheet if and when the petitioner is found involved in commission of fresh offences. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.16459 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.07.2010. ES