THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9377 of 2010 Date:19.7.2010 Between: Chinnamala Shiva ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department Secretariat and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Rajasree for Mr. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.P. for Home The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9377 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in closing rowdy sheet as illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Ms. Rajeswari, learned counsel representing Mr. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner is a resident of Gourapuram Village, Allapalli Gram Panchayat, Anantapur District. On the ground that he was accused in Criminal Cases, a rowdy sheet was opened against him on 9.7.2000 and it is being extended from time to time. The extension last made stands upto 31.12.2010. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in all the criminal cases, of which he was acquitted and that no criminal case is pending as of now. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the following criminal cases: i) Cr. No. 7/95 U/Sec 324,307, 379 I.P.C. ii) Cr. No.39/2000 U/Sec. 353 IPC iii) Cr. No.44/2000 U/Sec.324 read with 34 IPC iv) Cr. No. 54/2000 U/Sec. 147,148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC v) Cr. No. 89/2000 U/Sec. 147, 184, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC vi) Cr. No.33/2002 U/sec. 147,109, 353, 355, 505, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3 (X) of POA Act, 1989. That after fullfledged trial, the petitioner is acquitted of all the cases and that presently no cases are pending against him in the respondent No.4 police station. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, submitted that in order to curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, the rowdy sheet is being maintained. In my opinion, continuing the rowdy sheet causes damage to the reputation of a person. While it is certainly necessary for the police to take necessary measures to curtail the criminal activities of a person, in the name of taking of such measures, the dignity and self-respect of a person shall not be affected by continuing the rowdy sheet despite acquittal of the person from the criminal cases, in anticipation of commission of fresh offences. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner as of now, and he is not involved in commission of any fresh offence. Therefore, in my opinion, continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner however, with liberty to them to re-open the said rowdy sheet if and when the petitioner is found involved in commission of fresh offences. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 19th July, 2010 pnb