Parminder Singh vs Senior Superintendent of Police and anr.

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition seeks quashing of the historysheet of the petitioner opened by the respondents and for issuance of a direction to destroy the historysheet, fingerprints, footprints and photographs illegally taken and kept on the record of Police Station, Samrala.

The grounds alleged in the petition are that the petitioner Parminder Singh is a young man of about 39 years and has studied up to PreUniversity; that he is a wine contractor and also owns huge rural and urban property and is a respectable citizen; that the opponents of the petitioner got false cases registered against him at Police Station, Samrala and other police stations but he was acquitted in all the cases and was never convicted by any court for any criminal charge. It is alleged that the respondents have illegally entered the name of the petitioner in the historysheet vide Register No. 10 of Police Station Samrala apart from having taken his fingerprints, footprints and photographs.

Rule 23.4(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'') reads as under :

"23.4 Surveillance Register No. X.

(1) x x x

(2) x x x

(3) In part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of 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.

Note x x x

x x x

Rule 23.9 of the Rules is in the following terms :

"23.9 History Sheets when opened :

(1) A history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in Form 23.9 for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts.

(2) A historysheet may be opened by, or under the written orders of, a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for any person not entered in the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such person.

(3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the historysheets of criminals known or suspected to operate on the railway in accordance with Police Rule 23.8. They will open historysheets themselves for criminals living in railway premises, who have been absent from their original homes so long that the railway premises may be regarded as their permanent residence. They may also open historysheets for wandering strangers reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime on the railway, whose original homes cannot be traced."

Reply has been filed. The fact that the petitioner is 39 years of age is admitted but the remaining allegations have been denied. Of course, the allegation that the petitioner is living along with his family members at Samrala has been stated to be correct. It is stated that the petitioner does not enjoy good reputation and he is not only a habitual offender but a bad character besides indulging in smuggling of opium. Particulars of nine cases registered against him in Police Station Samrala and one case registered against him at Deoli (Rajasthan) have also been furnished. The fact that the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 19 dated 6th February 1976, under Section 224, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Samrala, on 13th September, 1985 but was released on probation under section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act is also mentioned. This entry is said to have been made under orders of the Superintendent of Police as required by rules 23.4 and 23.5 of the Rules.

Counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon clause (a) of subrule (3) of rules 23.4 quoted above, and has argued that the petitioner has never been convicted of any of the offences mentioned under rule 27.29 of the Rules, the mandatory requirement of which is that the person should not only have been convicted but convicted twice or more than twice of the offences specified under rule 27.29.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. So far as clause (a) of subrule (3) of rule 23.4 of the Rules is concerned, there is no doubt that a person before his name is entered in Surveillance Register No. 10 there has to be a finding that he has been convicted twice or more than twice of the offences mentioned under rule 27.29 ibid. In this case, there is no need to refer to specified offences as there is no order of conviction mentioned in the record against the petitioner. The only conviction which is said to have been recorded against the petitioner is in case FIR No. 19 dated 6th February, 1976 under section 224 Indian Penal Code, of Police Station Samrala (District Ludhiana), on 13th September, 1985, but inspite of that conviction, he was released on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But one conviction is not sufficient, he must have been convicted twice or more than twice of the specified offences as required by subrule (3) of rule 23.4.

The reliance by the respondents for making the relevant entry in respect of the petitioner is not on clause (a) but clause (b) of subrule (3) of rule 23.4 ibid which requires that the persons whose names can be entered in Surveillance Register No. X are those who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property, whether they have been convicted or not. In support of this contention, the respondents, have placed reliance on the police record prior to the making of the relevant entry. The record was summoned at the instance of this Court. It has a note dated Ist December, 1973, recorded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, which in a nutshell shows that although there is no conviction against the petitioner but it is mentioned that his reputation for smuggling of opium is bad and his activities should be watched; as a consequence, katcha historysheet be opened and further material be collected against him. It is on this basis that the respondents claim to sustain the opening and continuance of the impugned historysheet qua the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after his attention was drawn to this fact, had nothing to say against the same. Such an entry, to my mind, can be made on the subjective satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police, according to subrule (3) of rule 23.4 of the Rules.

Again, the other challenge made in the petition to the entry in question is that according to Rule 23.5 (2) of the Rules, the name of a person who has never been convicted or placed on security of good behaviour cannot be entered unless the Superintendent of Police has recorded definite reasons for entering him in the said surveillance register, and it is claimed by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has given no definite reasons for doing the same. Rule 23.4 ibid requires that persons whose names can be entered in Surveillance Register No. 10 are those who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not. In support of this contention, the respondents have placed reliance on the police record prior to the making of the relevant entry.

There is a note under rule 23.4 of the Rules showing that this rule must be strictly construed and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling under the four clauses named therein. A reference to rule 23.5 of the Rules further indicates that Surveillance Register has to be written up by the officerincharge of the police station personally or by an Assistant SubInspector in a clear and neat script. It further provides that all entries in Part 2 can be made only by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is strictly prohibited from delegating this authority. Subrule (ii) thereof requires that names of persons who have never been convicted or placed on security of good behaviour shall not be entered until the Superintendent has recorded definite reasons for doing so and the record of such reasons shall be treated as confidential. In this case, therefore, the question which requires consideration is whether police authorities had reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner was a desperate character or a habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime. The court is concerned to find out if the reasonable belief is based on some material which was germane and relevant to the question although the court would not be concerned with the sufficiency of the material. In this case, the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police does not give the basis for forming an opinion. The only basis seems to be the registration of cases against the petitioner and his acquittal therein. The said note on the file merely amounts to approval of the recommendations of his subordinate officers. No enquiry seems to have been made except the report of the Station House Officer which was received through the Deputy Superintendent of Police vide latter''s note dated 30.11.1973 and the said order was passed on 1.12.1973.

The provisions of the Rules have to be strictly construed as they have the effect of maligning the reputation of the individual and lowering him in the estimation of his friends, relations, neighbours and also in the estimation of the people in general. This may ultimately lead to restrict his freedom and interference in his dignity.

Again, a challenge has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the entry on the basis of rule 23.5 (ii) of the Rules, showing that the entry of a person never convicted or placed on security of good behaviour can be made only when the Superintendent of Police has recorded definite reasons. In the present case, as already stated above there are no definite reasons given by the Senior Superintendent of Police.

In this connection, a reference can be made to Amrik Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Report 664 : 1987 CC Cases 531 (Delhi). Therein the abovesaid principals have been reiterated and it has been specifically held that the mere belief of the Superintendent of Police is not sufficient and it has to be reasonable and based on reasonable grounds.

To my mind, the requirements of the Rules, referred to above, have not been satisfied and consequently, the opening of the historysheet qua the petitioner is not sustainable. This petition is, therefore, accepted and order for opening of the historysheet is quashed. It is further directed that fingerprints, foot prints and photographs of the petitioner, taken in pursuance thereof, be destroyed.