Gaggera Pullayya @ Bestha Pullaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

GAGGERA PULLAYYA @ BESTHA PULLAIAH, S/O G. BALA GURRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURALIST R/O R. JAMBULADINNE VILLAGE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶12

CHENNAMSETTI BASKAR,, S/O C. GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURALIST R/O JAMBULADINNE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, ALLAGADA SUB-DIVISION, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶19

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UYYALAWADA POLICE STATION, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

2

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶28

“…to issue a writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the high-handed action of the respondents in opening and continuing the impugned Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner's on the file of Respondent No.5 Uyyalawada Police Station, Allagadda Rural, Nandyal District, Vide Rowdy Sheet No.143 against the petitioner's, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, rule of law and against Article 14 and against the true letter and spirit of Right to Privacy contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents herein to close the Suspect Sheet against the petitioner's vide Rowdy Sheet No.143 on the file of Respondent No.5 Uyyalawada Police Station, Allagadda Rural, Nandyal District and to pass…”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant

¶30

Government Pleader.

¶31

Mr. Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent police opened a rowdy sheet, without following Police Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and that the rowdy sheet is still continuing, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 has filed counter in this case.

¶32

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.25 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 324, 307, 509 read with 34 of „the Indian

¶33

3

¶34

Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟) was registered by the Station House Officer, Uyyalawada Police Station, Nandyal District, against the petitioner. The present Writ Petitioners are Accused Nos.3 and 4. Later on 02.07.2015 the petitioners were acquitted by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandyala, vide S.C.No.402 of 2014. It is further submitted that, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners in the vicinity of Uyyalawada Police Station, the Station House Officer, Uyyalawada Police Station, opened rowdy sheet against the petitioners after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Allagadda SubDivision, Nandyal District/respondent No.4, vide proceedings in C.No.03/SDPO-NDL/2017 dated 04.02.2017.

¶35

As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601 the following persons should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets shall be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO.

¶36

i. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and security.

¶37

ii. Persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108(1) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

¶38

iii. 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 AP Town Nuisances Act.

¶39

iv. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences U/sec. 354-A, B C and 354D IPC.

¶40

V. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of Rape (376, 376, A,C D.E).

¶41

4

¶42

vi. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC)

¶43

vii. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can be maintained at all such police stations.

¶44

viii. 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 including "loan sharks".

¶45

ix. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in communal/caste or political riots.

¶46

x. 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.

¶47

xi. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.

¶48

xii Persons on who charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC)

¶49

xiii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.

¶50

xiv. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of People Act, 1951for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot paper, boxes and polling material.

¶51

On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet/suspect sheet against the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners do not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said Standing Orders. The petitioners have not committed any offence mentioned in the Standing Orders.

¶52

As seen from the record, the petitioners were earlier involved in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, and

¶53

5

¶54

509 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”) in Crime No.25 of 2013 of Uyyalawada Police Station. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Subsequently, the petitioners were acquitted on 02.07.2015 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, in S.C.No.412 of 2014. Thereafter, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioners on 04.02.2017, i.e., subsequent to the Acquittal. Ever since 04.02.2017, no adverse antecedents have been reported against the petitioners indicating involvement in the commission of any offences enumerated under the conditions mentioned in Standing Orders 601 and 602 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Therefore, the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioners proceedings in C.No.03/SDPO-NDL/2017 dated 04.02.2017 is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.

¶55

In pari materia , this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P¹ held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible.

¶56

Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh² , a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheet cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before

¶57

12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161

¶58

22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

¶59

6

¶60

branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility.

¶61

A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioners were acquitted in Crime No.25 of 2013 on 02.07.2015. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process.

¶62

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the petitioners is illegal. The respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners. However, it is open to the police concerned to invoke appropriate proceedings against the petitioners if they indulges in any offences which warrant opening of any sheet, such as a rowdy sheet, suspect sheet, or history sheet.

¶63