THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2091 OF 2010 Dated 2nd March, 2010 Between: Syed Hafeez Shareef @ Hafeez …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt V.Seshu Kumari Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to declare opening of rowdy sheet against him in the year 2007 by respondent No.4 Police Station as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt V.Seshu Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit, the petitioner contended that he is a Contractor, belonging to middle class family, and that he was accused in Sessions Case No.564 of 1999 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for offences under Sections 302, 448 read with 34 IPC and that he was acquitted of the said offences on 25.06.2001. The petitioner further pleaded that he was accused in another criminal case, namely; Sessions Case No.72 of 2008 on the file of the learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and that he was convicted of the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced for a term of five years (the learned counsel says the petitioner had mistakenly mentioned as seven years in his affidavit) and that he filed Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2009, which is pending in this Court. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order No.601.C and submitted that unless the persons were convicted for more than once in two consecutive years, under Sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F or under Section 3 (12) of the Andhra Pradesh Towns Nuisances Act, 1889, no rowdy sheet can be opened. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that apart from the above two crimes, in which the petitioner was involved, he is also accused in Crime No.1165 of 2007 registered under Section 70-B of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F and Section 323 IPC of Punjagutta Police Station. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the said case is not pending. Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order No. 601 reads as under: “The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO. A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security. B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A.P.Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations. F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the “AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986” for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, boxes and other polling material.” From the above mentioned provision, it is clear that rowdy sheets can be opened against persons, who fall in any of the categories mentioned in A to I. Each of the clauses of the Standing Order pertains to a distinct class of persons. These clauses have to be read disjunctively. If the police are satisfied that a person falls in any one of these categories, a rowdy sheet can be opened against him. Irrespective of whether Crime No.1165 of 2007 on the file of the Punjagutta Police Station is pending or not, the petitioner undoubtedly falls in Clause (A) of Standing Order No. 601, as his history clearly shows that he is in the habit of involving himself in commission of offences. Admittedly, the petitioner is convicted of an offence under Section 307 IPC though he was acquitted of an earlier Sessions Case. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner is acquitted of the pending appeal filed against his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.72 of 2008, he can approach the police for closing the rowdy sheet. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.2801 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd March, 2010 vrn