MAJID BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ petitions raise a common question and, therefors, they are disposed of by this judgment. Both the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Officers of the City Police not to open "Rowdy Sheets" against them. The facts not in controversy lie in a narrow compass. Both the petitioners are involved in two crimes. The first one relates to an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, in respect of which the crime was registered on 6-4-1987. The second crime was registered against them on 16-5-1987. Neither previous to 6-4-1987 nor subsequent to 16-5-1987, there were any allegations involving these two persons in any lawless activity. The Police opened Rowdy Sheets concerning both the petitioners.

(2.) Police Standing Order 742 which bears the heading 'Rowdies' reads : 742. (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub Divisional Officer : (a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of peace ; (b) persons bound over under Sections 106 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; and (c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12 of the Town Nuisance Act. (2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets". According to the learned Government Pleader, both the petitioners come under sub-clause (a), viz. persons who commit offences habitually. I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader. Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by the Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders. Regarding sub-clauses (b) and (c), it is admitted by the learned Government Pleader that the same are not attracted in the case of the petitioners.

(3.) When the Police open Rowdy Sheets against persons involving any offences pertaining to breach of peace, they need not communicate the reasons nor are the persons concerned entitled to be heard before the rowdy sheets are opened. Nonetheless, when a complaint is made to the Court that, contrary to the provisions of the Police Standing Order, Rowdy Sheets are opened, the respondents are under a duty to satisfy the Court that the action taken by them accords with the provisions of the Police Standing Orders or any other valid provision of law Vide Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab. #1 From the records placed before this Court. I am satisfied that Police Order 742(1) (a) is not attracted in respect of the two petitioners. The Writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and a mandamus will issue to the respondents not to open Rowdy Sheets against the petitioners under Policy Standing Order 742. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 1000/- in each.