APHC010597822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N BETWEEN: Bhikshala Sydulu @ Saidulu The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31238/2024 Bhikshala Sydulu @ Saidulu ...Petitioner AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: …pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in opening a Rowdy Sheet No.18/2020, dated 30.12.2020 on the file of the Chillakur Police station, Chillakur, NTR District and continuance of the same, as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders… 2. The present writ petition is filed to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 3 to 5 in opening suspect Sheet No 15/2020 dated 30.12.2020 on the file of the Chillakur Police Station Chillakur NTR District and continuance of the same as arbitrary illegal colorable exercise of power and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and 3 consequently prayed to set aside the same and for appropriate reliefs. 3. It is the torment of the writ petitioner that the respondents 3 to 5 has opened the suspect sheet since the petitioner was involved in Cr. No 142 of 2018 for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Cr. No. 33 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Cr. No. 43 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of Chillakur Police Station, NTR District and the said crimes are in connection with transportation of Rice. The petitioner was acquitted in the aforementioned cases. Under the guise of said crimes, the respondent No-5 opened suspect/history sheet and compelling to attend the police station regularly and making the petitioner to sit in the police station from morning to evening. Which act of the respondents is causing mental agony and it is in violation of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed asserting that after completing investigation a charge sheet has been filed in Cr. No. 4 43 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of Chillakur Police Station registered as C.C. No. 785 of 2019 and the accused was acquitted on 19.12.2022 as not found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Jaggaiahpeta. And similarly a charge sheet was filed in Cr.No. 43 of 2019 and the same Court acquitted the petitioner/accused vide C.C. No: 954 of 2019. As nothing was stated about Cr.No.142 of 2018 in the counter, this Court felt to leave it there. Further it is stated that the petitioner herein has scant respect towards the law and in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioner herein in the vicinity of the Chillakallu Police, a suspect sheet was opened against the petitioner after obtaining permission from Sub-Divisional Police Officer vide order dated 18.12.2020. 5. In the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venugopal1 the Police Standing Orders of State of Madras, especially PSO 145 read with Section 53 of Madras District Police Act, has come up for consideration. The contention before the Supreme Court was that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation of crime are superseded by the PSO and therefore 1 AIR 1964 SC 337 5 the investigation by the police has to be in accordance with Police Standing Orders (PSO). The said contention was rejected and the Supreme Court held: “Therefore, the law is well settled that Police Standing Orders have no force of law. This does not mean that Police Standing Orders cannot be clothed with statutory force. As held by the Supreme Court there may be certain Standing Orders which are issued by the authorities under the Police Act, which have statutory force.” 6. After formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in 1956, Madras District Police Act was adopted by Andhra Adaptation Order, 1953 and accordingly, A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1959 came into force along with the Police Standing Orders that were issued till 1954. 7. A reading of the Standing Order 600 leads or be classified as suspects and history sheets shall be opened; Nader the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO: “A. Persons once convicted under any section of the Indian Penal code who are considered likely to commit crime again, and B. Persons, not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime. 6 C. Member of Criminal gangs or organised criminal syndicates. D. Communal and caste activists who are known to instigate, organise violence or spark off communal or caste riots. E. Smuggles, hoarders, black-marketers and for professional land grabbers. 8. And it is further stated that care should be taken to see that history sheets are opened under this order only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual criminals or who are members of organised rime syndicates. And it is further stated that Standing Order 602(2) says that “merely because a suspect/rowdy having a history sheet in to figuring as accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should preclude the SP/DCP/CP to continue his history sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of pubic order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or the victims is not coming forward to a give complaint against him on account of threat from him.” 9. And PSO 749 empowers the police to watch persons against whom History Sheets have been opened. Even PSO 7 736(2) authorises the police to keep a close watch on the suspects, as defined in PSO 736(1). 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Asst. Government Pleader for State. Perused the record. 11. The Police Standing Order No.600 contemplates that history sheet/suspect can be opened by the respondent police against that the accused who have been shown as guilty under P.S.O. 736 because under the said PSO, persons once convicted for any offence under IPC who are considered likely to commit crime again and persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime have to be treated suspects and history sheets are to be opened against them. 12. The police may also open history sheets for suspects. Suspects are those persons who are convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code and who are considered likely to commit crime again. Persons who are not convicted but are believed to be addicted to crime are also treated as suspects. In case a History sheet is opened on the ground that a person is a suspect, care should be taken that History sheets are opened only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals, (PSO 736). 8 13. The legal validity of Chapter 37 of the A.P. Police Manual, which serves as the foundation for the creation of rowdy-sheets, suspect-sheets, and history-sheets, has been brought into question and challenged in W.P.No.3568 of 2022 and related cases. In a common order dated 15.07.2022, this Court addressed the issue extensively, taking into account relevant laws and previous judgments by the Supreme Court, particularly the landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India2. This Court concluded that Chapter-37 of the A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders on the basis of which the rowdy- sheets/ suspect-sheets/history-sheets are being opened and surveillance is being kept on the individuals on the basis of the said rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets, as deemed void. At para 45 of the said common order, it is held as follows: “45) Hence, the Writ Petition No.3568 of 2022 is allowed declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual / A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/ continuation of Rowdy Sheet, Suspect Sheet, History Sheet etc., and on that basis the surveillance of the individual (in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders) as void. All the other Writ Petitions are also allowed. All the 2 (2017) 10 SCC 1 9 rowdy sheets opened in this batch of Writ Petitions are directed to be closed immediately. The police cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of “law”. Collection of personal data and its usage for prevention of crimes also can only be in accordance with a “law” which crosses the thresholds mentioned in the Constitution of India and the various judgments including K.S.Puttaswamy case (referred supra) since ‘privacy’ is now a Fundamental Right as per Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is reiterated that the police cannot (under the existing orders) indulge in night visits; domiciliary visits to the houses of a suspect or accused. They cannot take or demand the photographs, fingerprints etc., except under the procedure established by a ‘law’ and if the conditions laid down are satisfied. Accused or suspects cannot be summoned or called to the Police Station or anywhere else either during festivals/ elections/weekends etc. They cannot be made to wait at the Police Stations for any reason or seek permission to leave the local jurisdiction.” 14. Referring the principles enunciated in the above judgments and for the conclusions reached by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and in the light of these facts, keeping the suspect sheet / rowdy-sheets / history-sheets against the petitioner, which is impugned in this writ petition, is illegal and unconstitutional,and it would constitute an abuse of judicial process. 10 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Rowdy Sheet opened against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 16. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.05.2025 Harin 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 31 W.P.No. 31238 OF 2024 Date: 02.05.2025 Harin