IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7039 of 2009 Between: Karnena Appala Naidu S/o. Late Rami Naidu Palakonda, R/o. Bejji Village, Palakonda Mandal Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Divisional Police Officer Palakonda Sub Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 2 The S.H.O. Palakonda , Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO MAVIDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is an Advocate, assailed the action of the respondents, in opening a rowdy sheet against him and continuing the same, as illegal and arbitrary. The main plank, on which the petitioner questioned continuance of rowdy sheet against him, is that both the Criminal Cases viz., Crime Nos.74 and 75 of 2006 of Palakonda Police Station ended in his acquittal on 14-08- 2008 itself and that despite the same, the rowdy sheet is being continued. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.2, it is admitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the abovementioned two cases on 14-08-2008. It is further stated that to curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner, the then Sub-Inspector of Police obtained permission from respondent No.1 and opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on 10-10-2006 and that it is being continued and renewed from time to time and that the said rowdy sheet stands extended till 31-12-2009. The Supreme Court and this Court held, in a catena of judgments, that the power to open rowdy sheet should be exercised discreetly and cautiously because it affects the right of freedom of the individuals guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from sullying their image in the public esteem. In Puttagunta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police[1], a Division Bench of this Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dhanji Ram Sharma vs. Superintendent of Police, Delhi[2] wherein it was held as under: “A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rr. 23.4 (3) (b) and 23.9 (2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender.” The Division Bench also relied on Kamma Bapuji and others vs. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram and another[3] wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against an individual in a casual and mechanical manner and that opening a rowdy sheet by merely dubbing a person as a habitual offender is not sufficient and that due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. It was further held that the main element that is essential for opening the rowdy sheet is that the acts of an offender should have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. Even Clause 601 of the Police Standing Orders stipulates certain pre-conditions for opening the rowdy sheet. Assuming that one of the conditions prescribed therein was attracted, when rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner in the aftermath of registration of two criminal cases against him in the year 2006, I do not find any justification, whatsoever, to continue the rowdy sheet against him after both the said cases ended in his acquittal. Nothing is stated in the counter-affidavit that after the disposal of the said two criminal cases, the petitioner indulged in commission of any fresh offence or caused any act, which disturbs public peace or law and order. Therefore, there can be no legal justification in the respondents continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd July, 2009 lur [1] 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.) [2] AIR 1966 SC 1766 [3] 1997 (6) ALD 583 = 1998 (2) An.W.R. 55