WP/44537/2017 of Panabaka China Ganga Babu , Ganga Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2017

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader (Home) for respondents.

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs :- “ …..to issue a Writ or Writs or Order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents in opening and continuing the Rowdy Sheet for single offence being maintained on the file of the 4[th] respondent Police Station, despite acquittal of the Petitioner by judgment dated 24/ 11/ 2015 in S.C.No.227/ 2012 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, as illegal, arbitrary in violation of 601 of Police Standing Orders and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents to close the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner being maintained on the file of the 4[th] respondent Police Station…..” .

This Court is prepared to admit the writ petition and post W.P.M.P. for counter of respondents.

Counsel for petitioner, on instructions from his client, submits that continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is unwarranted, both in law and fact. Even assuming that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, the same ended in acquittal. The petitioner is a responsible citizen and is prepared to work for social service or social cause to prove the transformation and continuing to be as such.

The counsel, keeping in view the procedure followed by respondents in renewing the rowdy sheet, requests the Court to direct the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to consider the representation of petitioner while renewing the subject rowdy sheet. To prove his value to the Society and take up social cause, the counsel submits that petitioner volunteers to do social service as may be intimated by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

The petitioner by stating so has persuaded this Court to direct the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to receive representation of petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer c onsiders entrusting social service/ cause to petitioner for undertaking the same.

The petitioner is given liberty to do social service and prove his utility in the locality/ society. As to the representation, this Court in similar circumstances directed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to consider representations on renewing the rowdy sheet.

Hence, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer is directed to take note of the circumstances as on date while reviewing the rowdy sheet challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner is given liberty to file explanation / representation within two weeks from today by enclosing copy of this order. This Court has no reason to doubt that as and when such explanation / representation is filed by the petitioner, the same is examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.4688 of 2012, which was disposed of on 16.03.2017 and in the judgments reported in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2].

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

_____________ S. V. BHATT, J

Dt: 28-12-2017 Prv

1 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)

2 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 38 = 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 115