Kanwarjit Singh vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

By this common judgment both Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1378 of 1988 and 1397 of 1988 can conveniently be disposed of together. For the sake of facility the facts are being mentioned from the writ petition titled Kanwarjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others (Criminal Writ petition No. 1378 of 1988).

The petitioner prayed for a direction quashing the alleged history sheets opened by the respondents and all subsequent proceedings thereto including removal of the photographs illegally taken and kept on the record of Police Station Pinjore, District Ambala. It is prayed that the name of the petitioner should be removed from Register No. 10, Police Station Pinjore, District Ambala.

The facts alleged are that petitioner is an active person taking part in the elections and local politics. He was elected as Sarpanch and supporter of a politician who was not in power. The ruling party was bearing a grudge against the petitioner. Certain false cases were registered against him. The petitioner had illegally been detained at Police Station Pinjore. A warrant officer was appointed in the criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner and it was found that petitioner had illegally been detained without any entry. It was followed by registration of many other cases. A history sheet had been opened qua the petitioner though he was not convicted is any case. It is contended that his name even had been added in Register No. 2. The petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor a convict and consequently the plea has been raised that since no definite reasons have been recorded, the said action of the respondents is illegal.

In the reply filed the petition has been contested. According to the respondents 19 cases were registered against the petitioner. Out of them he was convicted in 3 cases. In one case he was acquitted and in one case there was compromise. Rest of the cases were stated to be pending. In face of these facts, according to the respondents, there was full justification for adding the name of the petitioner in Register No. 10 and history sheet having been opened qua the petitioner.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the petitioner has not been convicted twice or more than twice for offences mentioned in Rule 27.29 of the Punjab Police Rules. He is not a habitual offender and consequently when no specific reasons had been recorded, the name of the petitioner could not be recorded in the surveillance register.

To appreciate the said controversy reference may be made to the relevant Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XXIII. Rule 23.4 refers to maintenance of Surveillance Register No. X. it reads :

"23.4. Surveillance Register No. X. (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in Form 23.4(1).

(2) In Part I of such register shall be entered the names of persons commonly residents within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned, who belong to one or more of the following classes :

(a) All persons who have been proclaimed under section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence is suspended in the whole or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government made under section 16 of the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918.

(3) In Part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent

(a) persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in rule 27.29;

(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not;

(c) persons under security under section 109 or 110, Code of Criminal Procedure;

(d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions.

The same has to be read with Chapter 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules which are also being reproduced below for the sake of ability :

"23.5. Entries in and cancellations from surveillance register. (1) The surveillance register shall be written up by the officer in charge of the police station personally or by an Assistant SubInspector in a clear and neat script. No entry shall be made in Part II except by the orders of the Superintendent, who is strictly prohibited from delegating this authority. No entry shall be made in part I except by the order of a gazetted officer. Entries shall be made either under the personal direction of, or on receipt of a written order from, an officer authorised by this rule to make them. In the later case, original order shall be attached to the register until the entry has been attested and dated by gazetted officer.

(2) Ordinarily, before the name of any person is entered in Part II of the surveillance register, a history sheet shall be opened for such person.

If from the entries in the history sheet, the Superintendent is of opinion that such person should be subjected to surveillance he shall enter his name in Part II of the surveillance register; provided that the names of persons who have never been convicted or placed on security for good behaviour shall not be entered until the Superintendent has recorded definite reasons for doing so.

The record of such reasons shall be treated as confidential and the person concerned shall not be entitled to a copy thereof."

The relevant portion of Chapter 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules further indicates that no entry has to be made except by the order of the Superintendent.

A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions would reveal that before a name can be entered in the surveillance register, a person must be convicted twice or more two occasions with respect to offences contemplated and mentioned under Chapter 27.29 of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner has not been convicted in any one of those offences. His name can again be so entered if he is a habitual offender. The order of opening a history sheet or making entry in the surveillance register is done as a precautionery measure. The past conduct has to be seen in light of the circumstances. Habitual oridnarily would mean a person repeating or persisting in commission of offences. The same has not been shown in the present case. The offences mentioned are not part of Chapter 27.29 of the Punjab Police Rules. Otherwise also no order in writing has been passed by the concerned authority mentioned above regarding his satisfaction that name of the petitioner has to be entered under Punjab Police Rules 23.5 and 23.9 in the history sheet or in the surveillance register. In the absence of any such order, the decision for entering such a name does not exist.

Reference to some of the precedents in this regard would be advantageous. In the case of Baleshwar Prashad v. Commissioner Police & Ors., 1987(2) RCR 517 the Deputy Commissioner of Police had not recorded his satisfaction but simply approved the office note. The order was set aside holding the same to be illegal. The same question came up for consideration before a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajinder Verma v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Recent CR 185. The name of the petitioner in that case had been added in the surveillance register. His case did not fall as in the present case under Rule 23.4. The order so passed was held to be illegal. Similarly, in the case of Harbans Lal v. District Magistrate, Rohtak, 1995(2) Recent CR 371 there was no conviction against the petitioner. The Court directed his name to be struck off from the surveillance register. The position in the present case is identical. There is no reason recorded by the Superintendent of Police nor the petitioner is shown to be convicted twice for offences contemplated under Rule 27.29 of the Punjab Police Rules. Therefore, there is no justification in the said order.

For the reasons, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order so passed are quashed.