While fully, firmly and finally upholding the invaluable legal rights of an accused who stood acquitted by the Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in an extremely laudable, landmark, learned and latest judgment in Writ Petition No. 6423 of 2014 delivered as recently as on July 4, 2022 has minced absolutely no words whatsoever to sagaciously hold that when an accused person has been acquitted of criminal cases pending against him and no more criminal cases are pending against him, then continuing a ‘’Rowdy Sheet’ against such a person is just not justified. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Cheekati Manavendranath of Andhra Pradesh High Court very rightly pointed out that, “The respondents ought to have closed the said rowdy sheets after they were acquitted in the said two murder cases.” There can be just no justification of any kind for continuing with the rowdy sheets in the records even after the accused is accused in the concerned case. Very rightly so!
To start with, this refreshing, robust, recent, rational and remarkable judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Cheekati Manavendranath of the Andhra Pradesh High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in opening the rowdy sheets against the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, sought for quash of the said rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 5.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 that, “A case in Crime No.89 of 2012 of Gospadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against the petitioners along with other accused. Similarly, another case in Crime No.35 of 1997 of Gospadu Police Station also registered against the petitioners along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. After completion of investigation, eventually, charge-sheets were filed against the petitioners along with other accused in both the said Crimes. The cases were committed to trial Court. After conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted in Sessions Case No.161 of 2000 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. But, on appeal preferred by them in Criminal Appeal No.1494 of 2001, the petitioners were acquitted in the said case as per judgment dated 29.04.2014. In the other murder case, the petitioners were acquitted in the trial Court in Sessions Case No.179 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allagadda. Before acquittal of the petitioners in the said two cases, as they were involved in two murder cases and as the activities of the petitioners are found to be prejudicial to the public interest, the impugned rowdy sheets were opened against them by the police.”
While then dwelling on the main grievance of the petitioners, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 expounding that, “Now, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that even after the petitioners were acquitted in both the cases and even though no case is now pending against them in any Court of law, that the police have been illegally continuing the said rowdy-sheets that were opened against them long back in the year 2014. Therefore, the petitioners sought declaration that the opening of the said rowdy sheets against the petitioners and continuing the same as illegal and prayed to quash the same.”
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 5 that, “Counter-affidavit of 5th respondent is filed. It is stated that as the petitioners are involved in two grave crimes and as their activities are prejudicial to the interest of the public and as they have been indulging in unlawful activities that the rowdy sheets opened against them. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.”
As we see, the Bench then deems it fit to mention so very rightly in para 6 that, “Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents would submit that even though the petitioners are acquitted in the said two murder cases, that as they have been indulging in unlawful activities, and as the activities of the petitioners are posing threat to the people residing in the locality and as their activities are prejudicial to the interest of the public that the rowdy sheets are being continued to prevent them from committing any such offences. He would submit that invoking Standing Order No. 601(A) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders that the said rowdy sheets were opened against the petitioners.”
Most significantly and also most remarkably, what really constitutes the cornerstone of this brilliant judgment is then summed up in para 7 wherein it is mandated by the Bench that, “It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioners have been acquitted in the said two murder cases. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against the petitioners now in any Court of law. Therefore, when the petitioners are acquitted in the said two murder cases and when no case is pending against them in any Court at present, there is absolutely no justification to continue the said rowdy sheets that were opened against them when the two crimes for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are pending against them. The respondents ought to have closed the said rowdy sheets after they were acquitted in the said two murder cases. Even though, it is stated that the activities of the petitioners are prejudicial to the interest of public and that their activities are posing threat to the public living in the vicinity, no material is placed before this Court to justify the said contention. It is only a bald allegation made sans any evidence to that effect. Therefore, the continuation of the rowdy sheets against the petitioners that were opened when two crimes were pending against them is, undoubtedly, unsustainable under law.”
It is worth noting that while continuing in the same vein, the Bench then hastens to add in the next para 8 that, “In the similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P. 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 held that when there are no crimes pending against the petitioner and when no material is produced to show that the acts of the petitioner are posing threat to the inmates of the locality that continuation of the rowdy sheet by invoking Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders or Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, is not justified.”
Finally, the Bench then manifestly concludes by clearly, cogently, commendably and convincingly holding in para 9 without mincing any words absolutely that, “Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the continuation of the impugned rowdy sheets against the petitioners is illegal. The respondents 4 and 5 are hereby directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheets that were opened against the petitioners. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.”
No doubt, all said and done, it must be acknowledged gently that what the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held so very commendably in this leading case must be implemented forthwith. It also certainly merits no reiteration that the police must definitely pay heed always to what the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in this case so very eloquently, elegantly and effectively and in other similar cases act accordingly! Of course, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Cheekati Manavendranath of Andhra Pradesh High Court has rightly, remarkably, robustly and rationally held that rowdy sheets can’t continue where accused is honourably acquitted and no criminal case is pending.
It must be definitely asked: Why should the accused be made to suffer even after he is honourably acquitted by the Court? It must also be asked: Why should the name of the accused still continue in rowdy sheets without any justification of any kind even after being honourably exonerated by the court? Why should the name of the accused not be removed from rowdy sheet after being honourably acquitted by the concerned court? There can be just no gainsaying that there is absolutely just no logic in continuing to still mention the name of the accused in the rowdy sheet even after being acquitted by the concerned court! So, it also definitely merits no reiteration of any kind that all the courts must always in similar such cases pay heed without fail to what the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held so very commendably, concisely, cogently, convincingly, composedly and courageously in this leading judgment! No doubt, there can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
It is worth noting that while continuing in the same vein, the Bench then hastens to add in the next para 8 that, “In the similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P. 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 held that when there are no crimes pending against the petitioner and when no material is produced to show that the acts of the petitioner are posing threat to the inmates of the locality that continuation of the rowdy sheet by invoking Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders or Standing Order No.602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, is not justified.”
