Sashi Kumar @ Mana vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This application is filed to remove the name of the petitioner from Surveillance Register No. 10 maintained under Rules 23.4 and 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, Vol. III.

It is not necessary for me to go in details. Suffice to say that there is a clear violation of rule 23.5, the relevant portion of which reads as under :

"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 historysheet, the Superintendent is of opinion that such a person should be subjected to surveillance, he shall enter his name in Part II of the surveillance register, provided that the name 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."

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner has never been convicted nor placed on security for good behaviour. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the Superintendent of Police to record definite reasons for entering the name of the petitioner in the Survelliance Register. Annexure R1 is the report of the City Inspector, Police Kotwali Patiala wherein the summary of the history of the bad character of the petitioner has been given. In that it was stated that the petitioner who was born in 1946 started doing Satta profession in the year 1982 and has been earning and has also established links with Satta persons. It is further stated that though the case was registered against him, he managed to get acquitted. Therefore, the City Inspector, Police Kotwali, Patiala recommended to keep vigilance on him and he be entertained (entered ?) in Register No. 10. On the basis of this report, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala on 1.4.1990 made the following endorsement :

"Historysheet be kept in fileA and entry be made in the Register No. 10, Part TT (i.e. Surveillance Register)."

The Superintendent of Police, Patiala has not recorded any reason as required under the proviso referred to above for entering the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. Further the City Inspector, Police Kotwali, Patiala in Annexure R1 used the words "that the petitioner managed to get acquitted." This language of the City Inspector is highly intemperate and deserves to be condemned. The said words cast aspersion on the Court. Nobody can manage to get an acquittal. It can neither be denied nor doubted that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the police fail to prove the guilt of the accused, necessarily the Court has no other option, but to acquit the accused. In such cases, there is no question of the accused to have managed to get an acquittal. For the failure of the Police to prove the guilt of the accused, the Court cannot be found fault with and no aspersion can be cast on the Court. Since the Superintendent of Police has not recorded any reason as required under rule 23.5 of the Police Rules, the entry of the petitioner in Surveillance Register is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the entry of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register is quashed. The Director General of Police, Punjab is hereby directed to issue suitable instructions to his subordinates not to use derogatory and intemperate language casting aspersions on the Court in their correspondence either to the superiors or any other agency.