Learned Government Pleader for Home, who has taken notice on 19.07.2013, has since secured the necessary instructions in the matter and informs the Court that the writ petitioner is involved in the following six cases on the file of Porumamilla Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District:

¶5

i) Cr.No. 27/2001 under Sections 147, 323 and 506 I.P.C. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C.No. 54 of 2001 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶6

ii) Cr.No. 28 of 2001 under Sections 147, 323, 506 I.P.C. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C.No. 302/2001 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶7

iii) Cr.No. 29/2001 under Sections 147, 323, 506 IPC. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No. 303/2001 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶8

iv) Cr.No. 31/2001 under Sections 147, 323, 506 IPC. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No. 305/2001 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶9

v) Cr.No. 79/2001 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. The case ended in acquittal vide C.C. No. 255/2001 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶10

vi) Cr.No. 117/2013 under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The case is under investigation.

¶11

As a result of his frequent involvement in criminal cases, with a view to curb and curtail his unlawful activities, the police seem to have considered opening a rowdy sheet against the petitioner and accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mydukur, in his proceedings, dated 14.02.2002, authorized opening of a rowdy sheet against the writ petitioner herein. Accordingly, a rowdy sheet against the petitioner has been opened and as a part of the exercise of preventing possible further involvement in criminal cases, the police have only been keeping a watch on his movements. It is specifically asserted that the police never harassed, threatened or interfered with the normal activities of the writ petitioner by calling him to the police station repeatedly as alleged by him.

¶12

In view of this information, no further orders are needed to be passed in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶13

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶15

22^nd July 2013

¶16

ksld

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1040 of 2010

¶19

January 31, 2013

¶20

SP/KKM

Chandubaigari Imam Hussain, v. The State Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandubaigari Imam Hussain, v. The State Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.V. Sesham Raju, Vs The Chairman/ Managing Director

A.Rajendra Prasad Babu, Vs The Transmission Corporation of Ap Limited

B.Raja Kumar, Vs The Apgenco

Dr. G. Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Ch. Nageswar Rao Vs Kakatiya University

Abdul Razzak, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh