AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jeyapaul, J.—The petition is filed seeking a direction to the sixth respondent to erase his name from the rowdy list prepared and
maintained by him.
The petitioner would contend that he is a trustee of Shree Balachander Vinayagar Aalayam situated at Tondiarpet, Chennai. The petitioner is
facing a case in C.C. No. 1318/2&07 for the offences punishable under Sections 294B, 448, 407 and 586(ii) of IPC on the file of the learned
15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Never was the petitioner convicted by any of the courts. It is his further contention that the sixth
respondent with mala fide intention included him as a history sheeter in Sl. No. 46 in the rowdy list prepared by him. It is further contended that the
petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case before the sixth respondent before ever, he was concluded as rowdy.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit, referring to Police Standing Order 746, that only a person who was addicted to
the commission of crime alone can be arrayed in the history sheets prepared by the Police Department. But, quite unfortunately, the petitioner, who
is admittedly facing only one criminal case, has been branded as a rowdy in the rowdy sheet prepared by the sixth respondent.
Mr. A. Saravanan, the learned Government Advocate (crl. side) would submit that the petitioner is a land grabber and therefore the sixth
respondent having collected necessary information from furtive source has chosen to include the petitioner in the rowdy list.
Police Standing Order 747 refers to the automatic opening of history sheet. History sheets shall be opened automatically at the time of
conviction of an accused for certain specified offences. Persons released from imprisonment for life even in one case, professional prisoners,
persons convicted once under Sections 395 to 402 of IPC, persons convicted under Sections 392 to 394 of IPC twice, persons convicted u/s 75
of IPC, persons convicted for house-breaking and theft twice, persons convicted for theft alone thrice, persons convicted u/s 109 of Cr.P.C. twice
and persons convicted u/s 110 of Cr.P.C. once shall be automatically included in the history sheet.
For the automatic opening of history sheets as contemplated under Police Standing Order 747, there is no necessity for giving any notice to the
convict, as the same provision speaks automatic opening of history sheet the moment an accused was convicted once, twice or thrice as the case
may be in respect of certain offences adumbrated thereunder. Adverting to Police Standing Order 746, it is found that the Police Department shall
include a person in the history sheets, if he is found to be addicted to the commission of crime whether convicted or not.
Enormous discretion has been vested on the authority concerned in arraying a person in the history sheet, as per the Police Standing Order 746.
A person might have been convicted for a serious offence, but still the authority concerned has the power to array him in the history sheet, if he
believes that such a person is addicted to the commission of crime. The very nature of the aforesaid provision requires notice to the accused
concerned to rebut the charge that he has been addicted to commission of crime.
In this case it appears that the petitioner has been charged only for the offences under Sections 294B, 448, 487 and 506(ii). He has not been
convicted for the offences adumbrated under Police Standing Order 747. The question of automatic opening of history sheet as far as the petitioner
is concerned does not arise. To array the petitioner in the history sheet invoking provision under Police Standing Order 746, the authority
concerned should have given notice to the petitioner to challenge the opinion formed by the authority concerned, but quite unfortunately, before
ever the petitioner was arrayed as a rowdy in the history sheet, he has not been given any opportunity adhering to the principle of audi alteram par
turn. Further it is found that the authority concerned has no material to establish that the petitioner is addicted to commission of crime. Mere
opinion of the authority concerned without any basis for forming such opinion cannot be a legal basis to array a person in the history sheet. The
petitioner should have been involved in many cases giving reasons to believe that he is habituated to commit the crimes. Admittedly the petitioner is
facing only one case under Sections 294B, 448, 407 and 506(ii) of IPC.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the sixth respondent arraying the petitioner in the history sheet in Sl. No. 46 stands quashed and the
sixth respondent is directed to forthwith remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list.
The Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.