IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 22615 of 2005 Between: 1 Mutyam Venkata Ramana, S/o. Veera Babu, R/o. Sarpavaram(V), Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, E.G.District. 2 Pitta Srinivas ( Home Guard), S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Sarpavaram(V), Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, E.G.District. 3 Annamaneedi Nagendra Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Ramanaiah Pet, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, E.G.District. 2 The Circle Inspector, Kakinada Rural Circle and Mandal, Kakinada, E.G.District. 3 The Station House Officer, Indrapalem P.S., E.G.District. 4 The Station House Officer, Sarpavaram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening Rowdy Sheets against the petitioners in Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada Rural Circle and Mandal, E.G.District is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to Police Standing orders 741 and 742 and violation Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners in Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada Rural Circle and Mandal, E.G.District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were involved only in one murder case in F.I.R.No.33/2005 of Indrapalem police station, East Godavari District for the offence under Sections 120B, 302 IPC and except that no other case is pending and therefore pendency of one case cannot constitute a ground to open a rowdy sheet as the petitioners are not the habitual offenders. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioners are rowdy elements and were involved in a sensational murder case vide Cr.No.33/2005 for the offence under Sections 302; 120B r/w 109 IPC of Indrapalem police station and they were accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in the said case and were arrested on 28-03-2005 and 30-03-2005, sent to the judicial remand, and after filing a charge sheet the case has been taken on file vide P.R.C.No.37 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. It is stated that during the municipal elections petitioners along with the other rowdy sheeters were creating law and order problem in Sarpavaram limits on 10-09-2005 and for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the said limits a case in Cr.No.178 to 183 of 2005 was registered on 10-09-2005 and they were arrested and produced before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kakinada for initiation of proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and to bind over the accused to be of good behaviour for a period of six months and the said case is also pending. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the bind over proceedings were already over and six months period is also over. Therefore, petitioners seek to issue a direction to close the rowdy sheet as the murder case alone is pending. 4. Under Order 601 of the A.P.Police Manual Part-I, Volume-III, a person can be classified as a rowdy, and a rowdy sheet may be opened against him if he is bound over under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and if he has attempted to commit or involve in more than one offence. Therefore, the single case of binding over also constitutes ground to open a rowdy sheet, but however, whenever a rowdy sheet is opened under Section 602-1 of the A.P.Police Manual such rowdy sheet is to be retained and maintained upto the end of December and merely because a person is not figured as accused in the previous five years the authorities should not preclude to continue the rowdy sheet. 5. I am of the opinion that the rowdy sheet has to be reviewed periodically at the end of every year. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, petitioners are permitted to make a representation before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, to consider their case whether to discontinue or continue the rowdy sheet and if any such representation is filed the same may be considered and disposed of within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 03rd March, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}