BEERJEPALLY VENKATESH BABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges the opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against him by the Station House Officer, K.P.H.B. Police Station as well as the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station. It is not in dispute that the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order No. 601 provides for classification of certain individuals to be perceived as 'rowdies' and enables the police to open rowdy sheets against them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police/Sub-Divisional Police Officer, but however, Standing Order 601 has clearly spelt out that a person, who habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences involving breach of peace and disturbance to public order and security, can be classified as a 'rowdy'. There are also other varieties of persons, who can also be described as rowdies, but however, in the instant case, we are not concerned with them, as there is no allegation made that the petitioner's case is attracted to any such activities.

(2.) The Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, who filed a detailed counter-affidavit, has indicated two possible reasons for opening the rowdy sheet against the petitioner; the first is the involvement of the petitioner in a sensational murder case, Crime No. 231 of 2012 on the file of KPHB Police Station. The petitioner is one of the accused in the said crime. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner is closely associated with another rowdy sheeter, by name Sri Anka Sriramulu and hence, to curb and curtail his unlawful activities in the vicinity of KPHB Police Station, the rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 10.05.2013. However, the Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station is fair enough in setting out, in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, that no other case is either reported or registered against the petitioner either at Miyapur Police Station or KPHB Police Station. Therefore, the entire issue has boiled down to his involvement in a single crime relating to a sensational murder as well as his association with another rowdy sheeter, who carries on real estate business.

(3.) The crucial expressions used in Standing Order 601 indicate that the person must habitually commit or attempt to commit or abets the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In other words, one must be a habitual offender or keeps abetting commission of offences, which is a plural of the expression 'offence'. Therefore, if the petitioner has involved himself in a single crime, he cannot be described as a 'habitual offender'. For one to become a habitual offender, propensity of repetition of the same conduct should be witnessed. Otherwise, involvement in a single crime cannot be described as habitual involvement in offences. Therefore, in my opinion, the first criteria for the petitioner to be described as a 'rowdy' as per Standing Order 601 is not satisfied. Similarly, even assuming that the person is intimidating by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means for parting with movable or immovable properties, the contents of paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit do not lend support. When once it is disclosed that no other fresh case is reported or registered against the petitioner, it certainly indicates that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, but he has only involved in a single and solitary crime. If the petitioner gets convicted for that offence, it would be a different matter, inasmuch as the Court dealing with the cases will appropriately sentence him. Since no other case is reported against the petitioner, 1 consider that the continuance of the rowdy sheet against him any further is not justified.