Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

The directions sought for by the petitioner in the present petition are that the respondents be directed to produce the Surveillance Register No. X maintained under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules and the History Sheet maintained under Rule 23.9 of the said Rules, and for the quashment of the entry of the surveillance register by which the name of the petitioner has been entered in Register No. X and he has been labelled as a historysheeter.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he is a graduate and he belongs to a respectable family and there is no criminal record of any nature against him for the past several generations. His father and his brother are agriculturists and the younger brother of the petitioner is a paratrooper in the Indian Army. On account of party faction in the village he has been implicated in three FIRs viz. FIR No. 257 dated 1st June, 1984 under Sections 302/120B, Indian Penal Code, and Section 17 of the Arms Act : FIR No. 242 dated 23rd May, 1984 under Sections 436/427/34 Indian Penal Code; and FIR No. 328 dated 20th July, 1984 under Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda. In all the three cases the petitioner was acquitted vide judgments dated 7th February, 1986, 16th April, 1985 and 6th July, 1985, respectively. Even after his acquittal in all the criminal cases, the petitioner was appointed as a substaff (Laboratory Attendant) in Government Senior Secondary School, Chughe Kalan, District Bathinda. He worked there upto February 1990. Then he joined the job as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation in the year 1990. The petitioner was promoted as High Grade Assistant in March, 1995. Now he is likely to get promotion as Assistant Administrative Officer but the name of the petitioner has been shown in the Surveillance Register No. X and he has been shown as a historysheeter. The petitioner has prayed that his name may be deleted from this record of the Police Department.

Notice of the petition was given to the State, which in reply has denied the allegations. So far as the registration of the cases is concerned, the respondents admitted that but there is no specific denial from the side of the State that the petitioner has been acquitted. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the judgments vide which he has been acquitted. Otherwise, also, the criminal cases were registered against the petitioner as far back as 1984. He is in job and he could get the job only if there was no criminal case pending against him. The stigma against the petitioner has already been removed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

In the light of the above, I allow this petition, as prayed for, and given directions to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the surveillance register and close the historysheet against the petitioner. The needful be done by the respondent Respondentauthorities immediately. Any identification mark of the petitioner as well as the photograph of the petitioner be removed from the record.