Clause (a) of Police Standing Order 742, therefore he was rightly named as a rowdy sheeter. Clause (a) of Standing Order 742 states;

"742(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the Commission of, Offences involving a breach of the peace."

6. This provision of the Police Standing Orders has been interpreted by this Court on various occasions. The Supreme Court while considering the similar provision in Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 had the occasion of interpreting the word' "habitual" used in a similar provision in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, . Speaking for the majority, Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah as his Lordship then was, held :

"The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit..... A single act or omission ..... cannot therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission ..... Because the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones."

2) you should file writ petition in HC for your removal from rowdy sheet as you are not a habitual offender

Andhra High Court

Pulla Bhaskar vs Superintendent Of Police, ... on 13 August, 1999

Equivalent citations: 1999 (5) ALD 155, 1999 (4) ALT 681

Bench: B Nazki

ORDER

1. Rule nisi.

2. The petitioner claims to be owner of a petrol filling station in Warangal district. He submits that he makes his livelihood from the income derived from the petrol pump. He also states that he is involved in politics and is connected to the Congress party. He had been elected as a Corporator of Warangal Municipal Corporation for two consecutive terms and he had been Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Warangal Municipal Corporation for the last four years. He is also President of the Warangal District Youth Congress. He was also a Member of the Civil Supplies Advisory Board of Warangal District and he was also a Member of Telecom Advisory Committee, Warangal. He submits that since he is in politics he has many well wishers and also many enemies. On his recent visit to Mattawada Police Station he found that his name was listed as a rowdy sheeter and was displayed in the notice board of the said Police Station. The petitioner further submits that he made enquiries with 3rd respondent as to why his name was included in the rowdy sheeters list although he was not involved in any criminal activity, the respondent No.3 informed him that it had been done at the instance of respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he met respondents 1 and 2 and requested them to remove his name from the rowdy sheeters list but his name was not removed from the list so far, therefore he filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to remove his name from the list of rowdy sheeters.

3. The respondents have filed their counter and the parties have been heard in detail, therefore this petition is being disposed of finally.

4. In the counter filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathwada Police Station, it is stated that rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 1998 and his name was displayed in the list of rowdy sheeters. It has been admitted that the petitioner is holding several public positions but it is denied that the petitioner has made any request for removal of his name form the list of rowdy sheeters. It is also denied that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activity. It is stated that on 5-7-1997 a case was registered against the petitioner being STC No.59/97 under Sections 290, 323 IPC, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200A, and the petitioner has also paid the fine. He was also accused in Cr.No.445/91, 255/92 and 124/94 under Sections 353 IPC and 353, 504, 506 IPC and 148, 452, 427, 506 IPC and he had been acquitted of those charges. There was another crime registered against the petitioner on 4-4-1994 being Cr.No.47/94 under Sections 147, 452, 427, 506 read with 149 IPC and the said case ended in acquittal. It is further stated that on 12-6-1998 the petitioner and other Corporator by name Mohammed attacked the Municipal Commissioner and beat him, they also destroyed the public property and a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No. 116/98 under Sections 186, 332, 353, 506 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act. In this case charge-sheet had been filed and the case was numbered as CC No.525/98. A petition had been filed by the petitioner in this case under Section 239 Cr.PC for discharging him from the case which was dismissed by the Court. Again on 12-6-1998 i.e., the same day when the Cr.No. 116/98 was registered against the petitioner, another crime being Cr.No.1 17/98 was registered against him under Sections 324, 353 IPC. Charge-sheet had been filed in this case also. In this case the petitioner was alleged to have thrown a flower pot on an employee of Municipal Corporation causing injuries to her.

5. So, in all, according to the counter, two cases being Cr.No.116/98 and 117/98 are pending against the petitioner in the appropriate Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is a habitual offender in accordance with Clause (a) of Police Standing Order 742, therefore he was rightly named as a rowdy sheeter. Clause (a) of Standing Order 742 states;

"742(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the Commission of, Offences involving a breach of the peace."

6. This provision of the Police Standing Orders has been interpreted by this Court on various occasions. The Supreme Court while considering the similar provision in Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 had the occasion of interpreting the word' "habitual" used in a similar provision in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, . Speaking for the majority, Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah as his Lordship then was, held :

"The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit..... A single act or omission ..... cannot therefore be characterised as a habitual act or omission ..... Because the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones."

Going by the definition as laid down by Supreme Court to the word 'habitual' if one sees the facts of the present case, there had been cases against the petitioner which resulted in acquittal in the year 1994 and from 1994 till 1997 there were no cases against the petitioner when, on 5-7-1997 a case had been registered against him and he had been fined with Rs.200/-. Then, after 5-7-1997 two cases of similar nature were registered against the petitioner on 12-6-1998. There have been long intervals between the occurrences and therefore in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (supra), the petitioner cannot be termed a 'habitual offender' within the meaning of Standing Order 742(a). The Division Bench of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, and the learned single Judge in Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, , have also laid down the same law as was laid down by the Supreme Court.

7. For the reasons given herein above, I do not find that the petitioner can be termed as a habitual offender, as such the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheeters list. No costs.

Hello,

1) In order to remove your name from the Rowdy sheet you have to abide by the undertakings that you have made for a period of two years. In other words you should not be involving in any activity involving or requiring police action or enquiry against you.

2) Jab tak aapka murder case ka hearing chalta rahega aapka naam Rowdy sheet me rahega. Ek baar aapka acquittal ho jata hai tab aap apna naam remove karwa sakte hai. Isliye aapko intazaar karni padegi.

Jab tak aap apney aap ko court mein nirdosh sabit nahin karte tak tak aapka nam erase nahin kiya ja sakta, so face the trial to prove your innocence as no shortcut exists.

The police list cannot be altered by law but when the police foist false cases it can be challenged. The Indian police maintain databases of individuals who need to be kept under constant surveillance. These databases are much broader in nature than arrest records. They contain information regarding individuals who the police believe could “disturb the peace in society” and are “likely to commit crimes.”There are no objective criteria (like an arrest) for placing a person on these databases. There is a common perception about the Indian police that they are unprofessional,unsystematic, and that their performance is largely deficient. The current practice is that the Karnataka Police Manual provides for maintaining a confidential “Register of Rowdies.” 1059(1) states “a rowdy may be defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan,rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the public peace or tranquillity.”

The latter half of the definitionis vague enough to include within its scope a wide variety of individuals. The Manual also provides for including in the Register, names of “novices, who are budding goondas.” The “safeguard” provided is that the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Officer needs to approve the entry of the name of a person into this“Register of Rowdies.” The Manual also states that if a person has a “very bad reputation” as a bully, that person’s name may be included in the Register after a thorough enquiry.

Once a person’s name has been included in the Register,it provides for maintaining a “running history” of that person and his/her activities.

The Supreme Court has always found it difficult to adjudicate on the right to privacy, especially in the context of crime prevention. It has consistently upheld the constitutionality of provisions dealing with surveillance, after laying down guidelines to ensure that they remain constitutional.

The Court ruled that surveillance registers and ‘history sheets’ are maintained for the purpose of preventing crime. Since these documents are by nature confidential there was no question of the application of the rule of audi alteram partem in this context. on the issue of the danger of potential misuse of this unbridled power by the police, the Court ruled that since the responsibility of adding people onto the list was with the Superintendent of Police, this was enough of a safeguard against abuse.The Court was thus imposing faith in the higher echelons of the police hierarchy to prevent abuse.Since the Superintendent of Police heads the police administration in the district, the Court appears to believe that he/she would ensure that his/her subordinates do not abuse their power. It however noted that in the event of abuse, it was always open to an aggrieved person to approach a court, which could then look into the reasons for a person being placed on the list. The aggrieved person himself/herself had no independent right to seek reasons.

On the issue of extent of deprivation of privacy, the Court held that surveillance cannot be of such a nature so as to “squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual.

Thus approaching court for relief would be the only solution.