Rowdy sheet against scribe unconstitutional

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,June 24: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that opening of a rowdy sheet based on single offence against a person was subversive of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person a right to live with human dignity.

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, while allowing a petition filed by Mr P. Sathiyya Naidu, a scribe working in a vernacular daily at Katrenikona in East Godavari district, slapped costs of Rs 5,000 against the sub-inspector of police, for causing embarrassment to the petitioner by opening a rowdy sheet.

The judge directed the superintendent of police, East Godavari district, to recover the amount from the salary of the sub-inspector and pay to the petitioner. The petitioner told the court that a case was registered against him for allegedly forging a house site patta document in the name of Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, the then Chief Minister of AP, under Indiramma Housing Scheme.

It was pointed out that except the above mentioned case, the petitioner was not found involved in any criminal cases at the time of opening the rowdy sheet. The judge while reiterating the findings of the

AP High Court in a case said that the rowdy sheet can not be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as a habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet was not sufficient.

While declaring the action of the police as illegal, the judge quashed the rowdy sheet and directed the police to pay costs within four weeks.

Top cop granted bail in murder case

The AP High court on Thursday granted conditional bail to S. Rajendra Prasad, the deputy superintendent of police of Peddapalli, who was allegedly involved in a murder case of a constable Ramesh at Godavarikhani.

Justice Raja Elango, while granting the bail, directed the DSP to surrender before the lower court and furnish reasonable sureties to obtain bail.

The judge also directed the DSP to appear before the district police superintendent on July 3 and 10, 2010. The petitioner pleaded innocence by saying that he was falsely implicated in the case.