THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24439 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questioned the opening of rowdy sheet against him by the police of I Town Police Station, Hindupur, in exercise of powers under Standing Order No.742 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an Excise Contractor, he owns agricultural land and he was falsely implicated as Accused No.1 in S.C.No.153 of 1997 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. It is submitted that cases in Crime Nos.10 and 101 of 2004 on the file of I Town Police Station, Hindupur, were registered against the petitioner only under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to secure his presence. It is also submitted that although the petitioner was acquitted in the cases, which were registered against him, without any basis, the respondents are continuing the rowdy sheet against him. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner involved in the following criminal cases. (a) Cr.No.126/95 u/Ss.147, 148, 324 and 302 r/w 149 IPC of Hindupur I Town Police Station (Ended in acquittal). (b) Cr.No.10/2004 u/S.107 Cr.P.C. of Hindupur I Twon Police Station (Was bound over to be good behaviour for a period of 6 months with self sureties Rs.50,000/- by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda vide M.C.No.9/04, dated 9.4.2004. (c) Cr.No.101/2004 u/S.107 Cr.P.C. of Hindupur I Town Police Station (Case is pending trial and posted to 17.01.2005 for appearance of the petitioner before the RDO, Penukonda). It is also stated that on the recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on 17.12.1996 and it is being renewed year after year. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order, dated 07.02.2005, in W.P.No.256 of 2005, in which, the learned Single Judge of this Court observing that the petitioner therein was involved in only one crime and he was acquitted in it and other two cases in Crime Nos.10 and 101 of 2004 registered against him are of inconsequential nature for opening a rowdy sheet, allowed the said writ petition and quashed the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner in view of his acquittal in the solitary case registered against him. In this case, it is to be noticed that against the petitioner, only one case in Crime No.126 of 1995 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 IPC read with 149 IPC, and other two cases were registered for executing a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was already acquitted in Crime No.126 of 1995 registered against him. Time and again, this Court already held that basing on the solitary instance, the accused could not be termed as habitual offender for the purpose of opening of rowdy sheet. As the petitioner was already acquitted in Crime No.126 of 1995, no cases were registered against him at a later point of time and Crime Nos.10 and 101 of 2004 registered against him cannot be the basis for opening of rowdy sheet against him, this Court is of the view that opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same against the petitioner is contrary to very Standing Order as referred to above and the judgments rendered by this Court. (see SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1]) It is also well settled that even if a rowdy sheet is opened against a person/accused, it cannot be just renewed unless there are valid reasons recorded in support of renewal of rowdy sheet opened against such person. Such continuance is also disproved by this Court in MOHAMMED QUADEER AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[2]. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the judgments of this Court in SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA’s case a n d MOHAMMED QUADEER’s case (1 and 2 supra), it appears, there is no basis for opening of rowdy sheet and continuing the same against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is involved in any other crime, it is always open to the respondents for opening fresh rowdy sheet against him. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni [1] 1999 (6) ALT 249 [2] 1999 (3) ALD 60