AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Srivastava, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for a direction to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the list prepared under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and directing respondent No. 3 the Station House Officer, Police Station Gohana, not to call the petitioner in the police station under the garb of illegal list.
It has been alleged that respondent No. 3 has entered the name of the petitioner in the list prepared by him under Section 110 Cr.P.C. without submitting any calendra to the Executive Magistrate, as required by law. The continuance of his name in the said list is reflecting on the reputation of the petitioner and is subjecting him to unnecessary harassment. The photograph of the petitioner, it is alleged, has also been affixed in the police station under the category of persons under Section 110 Cr.P.C. It is alleged, that at the time of filing of this petition, no case or criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, who was not arrayed as an accused and convicted by any criminal court throughout the country. The freedom of the petitioner has been curtailed by the respondents without any reasons or basis. It was also mentioned that under the provisions of the Police Rules, the police may maintain a surveillance register under Rule 23.4. However, the petitioner is not covered under the said rule also.
Notice of motion was issued to respondents. Respondent No. 3/Mahabir Singh, Sub Inspector/SHO, police station Gohana, has filed reply wherein it has been contended that the petitioner was found involved in the following cases :
"(I) Case FIR No. 201 dated 28.8.93, P.S. Gohana, u/Sections 364/394/302/34/120B IPC.
(II) Case FIR No. 232 dated 20.6.93, under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act;
(III) Case FIR No. 880 dated 26.11.93, under Sections 302/34/120B IPC, P.S. Saddar Karnal."
In view of his involvement in the said cases, the provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. are clearly attracted. Reference was made to Rule 23.4(3)(b) Volume III of the Punjab Police Rules, which reads, inter alia, as under :
"Persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not."
It was alleged that since the petitioner figured in the said cases, his name has been entered in the surveillance register, for which it is not necessary to follow the procedure as laid down under Section 110 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the petitioner was summoned to the police station Gohana only on four occasions. However, the police had gone to his native village to check his physical presence. It was further admitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid cases, but it was mentioned that he had won over the witnesses, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. In para 6 of the reply, it was mentioned as under :
"Para No. 6 of the petition is wrong and hence denied. The allegations levelled in this para are false and frivolous. The petitioner is notorious person. It is necessary to keep a check on such persons otherwise he may prove a danger to the society."
Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, learned Advocate representing the petitioner mainly relied upon the provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. in support of her contention that the mandatory procedure as laid down thereunder has not been followed by respondent No. 3 before entering the name of the petitioner in the register aforesaid. The provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. read as under :
"110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who
(a) is by habit a robber, housebreaker, thief or forger, or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under Section 498A, Section 489B, Section 439C or Section 489D of that Code, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of peace, or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of
(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely :
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973);
(c) the Employees'' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(g) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
(g) is so desparate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,
such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit."
A perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, on the other hand, will go to show that the name of the petitioner was entered in the surveillance register, as maintained under Rule 23.4(3)(b) VolumeIII of the Punjab Police Rules, which, inter alia, provides as under :
"23.4. Surveillance Register No. X (1)
(2)
(3) In Part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent
(a)
(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not;
(c)
(d) "
A perusal of the cases in which the petitioner was involved, referred to above, will go to show that he was an accused in heinous offences like murder, robbery and theft as also the cases under Arms Act and criminal conspiracy. The stand taken by respondent No. 3 is that the name of the petitioner was not entered in the list prepared under Section 110 Cr.P.C., but his name finds place in the Surveillance Register maintained under Rule 23.4(3)(b) Volume III of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner does not seek the quashing of any such entry made in the Surveillance Register. So far as the entry in the Surveillance Register is concerned, the conviction of a person is not the requirement. The persons who are found to be habitual in committing the offences mentioned therein, can be entered in the said Surveillance Register. In para 3 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, it has been mentioned, inter alia, as under :
"The initiation of proceedings to bring the person in the surveillance register is not mandatory, as per Section 110 Cr.P.C."
If the petitioner feels aggrieved against his name being entered in the Surveillance Register, he could seek appropriate remedy. However, in the present petition he seeks removal of his name from the register maintained under Section 110 Cr.P.C., which according to the reply filed by respondent No. 3, has not been entered.
Resultantly, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.