HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24138 of 2007 Dated: February 19, 2008 Between: Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Sri Sundaram, Aged 41 years, R/o.44-14-119, Lenin Nagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada-5. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary, and others. … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet bearing No.4/1992 opened against him on 24-11-1992 without subjecting the same for review as per the A.P. Police Standing Orders as illegal and arbitrary, and a consequential direction to quash the said rowdy sheet. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner, from his student days, participated in student union activities and was branded as one of the followers of Sri D. Rajasekhar alias Nehru, the present Member of Legislative Assembly from Kankipadu constituency. It is stated that as the petitioner was identified as a supporter of Sri D. Rajasekhar, he was implicated in various crimes along with him and in view of the same, a rowdy sheet was opened against him in the year 1992 terming him as a habitual offender. It is also stated that petitioner was elected as Corporator from Ward No.32 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation during the year 1995, elected as Deputy Mayor of the Corporation during the year 2000-2005 and re-elected as Corporator in the year 2005 and is continuing as such. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is not involved in crimes, he was falsely implicated and a series of cases were registered against him, as a result of which rowdy sheet No.4/1992 was opened against him and the same is being continued without proper review as per the A.P. Police Standing Orders. It is the case of the petitioner that in almost all the cases in which he was made accused ended in acquittal after trial and in spite of the same, without examining the rowdy sheet opened against him, as per the A.P. Police Standing Orders, the same is being mechanically reviewed and continued. 3. Respondent No.4, the Station House Officer, Law & Order, VII Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, series of crimes in which the petitioner was involved, numbering about 23 have been extracted, i.e. right from Cr.No.150/89 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, to Cr.No.232/2005 registered under Section 110 Cr.P.C. on the file of Machavaram Police Station. The cases in which the petitioner was acquitted after trial are also shown. It is stated that petitioner is the Corporator of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and was former Deputy Mayor, but he is known for his antisocial activities. It is stated that many witnesses have turned hostile due to his fear and as much as the petitioner is a habitual offender, to have a close watch on his activities and to maintain law and order, rowdy sheet bearing No.4/92 was opened against him in the year 1992 in Machavaram (VII town) Police Station and the same is being continued and reviewed from time to time in terms of Standing Order 601(A) of A.P. Police Manual. It is stated that rowdy sheets are reviewed at the end of December every year and the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner stands renewed upto 31-12- 2008. 4. Heard Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. 5. It is submitted by Sri Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the instant case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner on political considerations, as he is a strong supporter of Sri D. Rajasekhar, present M.L.A., from Kankipadu constituency. It is submitted that even if rowdy sheet is opened validly, it has to be reviewed as per the Police Standing Orders having due regard to the material on record and it cannot be reviewed and extended from time to time mechanically. Learned counsel has placed reliance on number of judgments of this court as well as the Apex Court in support of his argument that, in absence of any registration of crimes against the petitioner after 2004, it is not open for the respondents to continue the rowdy sheet opened against him on the ground that he is a habitual offender within the meaning of Standing Order 601(A) of A.P. Police Manual. 6. On the other hand, while admitting that petitioner is acquitted in majority of cases registered against him, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents that in view of the threat of the petitioner, several witnesses did not come forward to depose against him and for want of witnesses he was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that as he is a habitual offender and in view of his involvement in several cases and antisocial activities, rowdy sheet was opened against him and the same is being continued and reviewed from time to time. It is further submitted that respondents have reviewed the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and the same is extended upto 31-12-2008. 7. Learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of the extract of the proceedings issued, for continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner for the period upto 31-12-2008. 8. I have also perused the original register produced before the court. A perusal of the review proceedings would indicate that proposals were put up for continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner upto 3-12-2008, stating that petitioner is a Congress leader and Corporator of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and is an important associate of Sri D. Rajasekhar, Member of Legislative Assembly. It is stated that due to his political background and highhanded behaviour, nobody is coming forward to lodge a complaint against him and to control his illegal activities, rowdy sheet is to be continued upto 31-12-2008. Based on the same, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has permitted to retain the history sheet upto 31-12-2008 against the petitioner with the following observations: “ 1) As per the current doings number of allegations were observed. You are instructed to make a close watch on the movements of this Sheet holder and control him. 2) Permitted to continue the sheet till 31.12.2008.” 9. Opening of rowdy sheet is presently governed by Standing Order 601 of the A.P. Police Manunal. In the aforesaid Standing Order, several persons have been classified as rowdies for the purpose of opening sheets, in Form 80. From a series of cases registered against the petitioner, which are referred to in the counter affidavit, there was initially some basis to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is a habitual offender for opening rowdy sheet against him. However, even as per the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges leveled against him in most of the cases which were registered prior to 2004. In some cases, prosecution itself withdrew the cases and some other cases were compounded. But, however, fact remains that after 2005, even as per the counter affidavit, only one case was registered against the petitioner, in which he has given security bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C., on the file of Machavaram Police Station. In most of the cases where serious charges were framed earlier, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, details of crimes in which the petitioner was involved and the present status of such crimes is given in detail and it is appropriate to extract the said details, which read as follows: 1. Cr.No.150/89 under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324, 302 read with 149 IPC of Satyanarayanapuram P.S. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide S.C.No.94 of 1993 on 05.01.1998. 2. Cr.No.275/89 under Section 302 IPC of Patamata PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal. 3. Cr.No.316/89 under Section 324 IPC of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal. 4. Cr.No.317/89 under Section 353 IPC and 27 of Arms Act of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal. 5. Cr.No.277-A/90 under Sections 143 and 353 read with 149 IPC of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal on 24.8.1998. 6. Cr.No.278/90 under Sections 147, 427 and 341 IPC and 17(1) Crl. Amendment Act of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.677 of 1994 on 24.8.1998. 7. Cr.No.279/90 under Sections 147, 341 and 427 IPC and 17(1) Crl. Amendment Act of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.249/93 on 24.8.1998. 8. Cr.No.280/90 under Sections 147, 427 and 341 IPC and 17(1) Crl. Amendment Act of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.250/93 on 24.8.1998. 9. Cr.No.283/90 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 436 read with 149 IPC of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal on 05.10.1999. 10. Cr.No.152/92 under Sections 147, 148 and 303 IPC of Patamata PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide SC No.97/95 on 08.06.2000. 11. Cr.No.42/94 under section 332 IPC of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.655/94 on 21.02.1995. 12. Cr.No.161/95 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 427 read with 149 IPC of Machavaram PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.92/96 on 20.10.99. 13. Cr.No.241/95 under Sections 143, 323 and 506 read with 149 IPC of Suryaraopet PS. The above case forcibly ended in compromise vide C.C.No.297/97 on 26.03.1998. 14. Cr.No.51/96 under Sections 323, 448, 452 and 506 read with 34 IPC of Suryaraopet PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.403/97 on 18.05.1998. 15. Cr.No.34/96 under Section 302 IPC of Bangarupalem PS, Chitttoor district. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal on 28.01.1998. 16. Cr.No.102/96 under Section 302 IPC of Nandigama PS, Krishna District. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal on 19.12.2000. 17. Cr.No.228/99 under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 IPC of Nunna Rural PS. The above case forcibly ended in compromise vide CC No.120/2000 on 01.11.2001. 18. Cr.No.322/98 under Sections 143, 153, 188, 189, 290, 427, and 341 read with 149 IPC of Patamata PS. The case was withdrawal for prosecution vide CC No.880/98 on 12.8.05. 19. Cr.No.59/2000 under Section 177(H) and 188 IPC of Suryaraopet PS. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.395/2000 on 13.06.2001. 20. Cr.No.363/01 under Section 151 CPC of Machavaram PS. In this case he was arrested under Preventive measures while he was designing to commit a cognizable offence on 15.07.2001. 21. Cr.No.154/2004 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. of Machavaram PS. In this case he was bound over for good behaviour vide MC No.6/04. 22. Cr.No.284/2004 under Sections 384 and 506 read with 34 IPC of Suryaraopet PS. The witnesses in the above case turned hostile due to fear of the accused. The above case ended in acquittal vide CC No.136/05 on 07.04.2005. 23. Cr.No.232/05 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. of Machavaram PS. In this case he was bound over for good behaviour for one year vide MC No.16/05 on 12.9.05. 11. Though it is the case of the respondents that petitioner was acquitted of the charges because the witnesses did not come forward to depose against him fearing him, but however, for the purpose of considering the issue which is involved in the writ petition, it is not necessary to go into the basis for acquittal of the petitioner in those cases. It is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner is a habitual offender, rowdy sheet was opened against him and is being continued as such. Similar such Police Standing Orders have been interpreted by this court and the Apex Court. The Apex Court, while considering similar provision in Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 had the occasion of interpreting the word “habitual” used in a similar provision in Vijay Narain Singh V. State of Bihar[1]. In the said judgment, it was held that “the expression ‘habitually’ means ‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.” Coming to the case on hand, a perusal of the proceedings issued by the competent authority for renewal of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner reveals that the renewal is effected mainly to keep a close watch on the movements of the petitioner and to control his activities. The competent authority who is empowered under the Police Standing Orders to issue such proceedings did not consider any material, which is relevant for the purpose of continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Though large number of cases in which the petitioner was involved were referred to in the counter affidavit, but, however, even according to the respondents, he was acquitted from the charges leveled against him in most of the cases. Though details of series of crimes right from the year 1989 were given in the counter affidavit, in most of them petitioner was acquitted from the charges. In the year 2004, in Cr.No.154/2004 registered under Section 110 Cr.P.C on the file of Machavaram P.S., petitioner was bound over for good behaviour vide M.C.No.6/04 and similarly in Cr.No.232/05, he was bound over for good behaviour for one year vide M.C.No.16/05 on 12-09-2005. 12. In view of the above factual aspects, the relevant issue would have been to consider whether, in absence of any registration of crimes against the petitioner during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, can he be treated as a habitual offender? In view of the big interval after the last case registered against the petitioner and the review proceedings taken up, in absence of any allegation of involvement of the petitioner in any crimes of recent nature, respondents cannot treat the petitioner as a habitual offender, even now, to continue the rowdy sheet opened against him. From a perusal of the proceedings for continuing the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, it is clear that continuance of such rowdy sheet upto 31-12-2008 is ordered without considering relevant material and the same has been done only on the ground that a close watch is required on his movements and to control his activities. The ground, as mentioned, to watch the movements of the petitioner, is not a valid ground to continue the rowdy sheet opened against him. In view of large number of cases registered against the petitioner, though there was some basis for the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against him, initially, but, however, I find no valid material for its continuance, particularly, for the period beyond 31-12-2007. As relevant issues were not taken note of by the competent authority while deciding the continuation of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, the said continuance has to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that continuation of rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that respondents may keep watch on the activities of the petitioner and if he involves in any crimes further, by continuing repetitive acts, this order will not preclude the respondents from opening a fresh rowdy sheet against him. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 19, 2008 MRR [1] AIR 1984 SC 1334