Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 223 Del

ORDER

M.K. Chawla, J.

1. On 9-3-1974, SHO of Police Station, Kingsway Camp recommended the name of the petitioner for opening of the history sheet and an entry into the Surveillance Register on the averments that after leaving the school, the petitioner became vagabond and came in association with Rajpal and Joginder residents of village Sahipur and Dhani Ram resident of village Haiderpur. He started his criminal career in the year 1969. He has so far been arrested in four cases of Police Station, Alipur and Kingsway Camp. He further observed that the petitioner was sentenced to three months R.I. in case F.I.R. No. 22 dt. 23-1-1970 under Section 392, I.P.C. Police Station, Alipur. His paternal uncle Ram Kishan is B.C. of Bundle 'A' of Police Station Kingsway Camp. The nefarious activities of Ram Kishan also attribute to the criminal career of this B.C. to a great extent. The history sheet of this B.C. is prepared The orders may kindly be passed to keep the history sheet of this B.C. on bundle 'A' so that the activities of this B.C. can be closely and constantly watched.

2. The SDPO of the area vide order dt. 12-3-1974 agreed with the proposal and recommended that the name of the petitioner be kept in bundle 'A' and his name be also entered in register No. X Part II. This recommendation was finally approved by the S.P. on the same day.

3. This very order is under challenge and the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ; order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the entry from the Police Surveillance Register and to close the history sheet.

4. The first and foremost submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, while approving the recommendation of the SHO of the concerned Police Station has not complied with the mandatory requirements of the Punjab Police Rules, which envisage the recording of definite reasons for permitting either to open his history sheet or bring the name of the petitioner on the Surveillance Register. The mere "approval" cannot be equated with his "reasonable belief that the petitioner is "habitual offender" or a receiver of a stolen property. Furthermore, he was also required to form an independent opinion that the petitioner is a desperate character, a terror in the vicinity and his activities are required to be kept under observation.

5. I have carefully perused the record of the petitioner as maintained at the concerned police station and I find that the D.C.P., in fact, has written the word "approved" and signed it. This is not the requirement of the Punjab Police Rules as well as the law laid down on this aspect.

6. The well settled rule is that the mere approving of the recommendations of the Station House Officer can in no case be said to mean that the Superintendent of Police has given definite reasons for permitting either the opening of the history sheet or of putting the name of the petitioner on the Surveillance Register. Non-giving of reasons is an infirmity and thus the order is without any justification. Useful reference can be made to the dictum laid down in the judgment reported (in) Peter Samual Wallace v. Inspector General of Police, New Delhi 1981 Cri LJ 1195 and followed in the case of Inder Singh Malik v. State (1986) 3 Crimes 191 and the two criminal writ petitions decided by this Court bearing Cri Writ No. 109/85 reported in 1988 Cri LJ 1127, Baleshwar v. S.H.O. Police Station, Delhi Cantt. and Amrik Singh v. Commr. of Police, Cri. Writ No. 300/85. The above said rule fairly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case and on this short ground, I have no hesitation to quash the order of the respondents whereby the name of the petitioner was entered in bundle 'A' and on the police surveillance register.

7. Even on merits, the respondents have not been able to justify either the opening of the history sheet of the petitioner or placing him in Part II of Register No. X. The condition precedent to the opening of the history sheet under Rule 23.5(2) is that the suspect must be a person "reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or a better of such person." Similarly, the condition precedent to the entry of the names of the suspects in Part II of the Surveillance Register No. X is that he is a "person who is reasonably believed to be habitual offender or receiver of stolen property whether he has been convicted not."

8. "A habitual offender" or a person "habitually addicted to crime" is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the Police Officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). However, mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable and based on reasonable grounds. Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi Police .

9. In the present case even though to start with, the SHO in his report mentioned four cases on the basis of which, he recommended the opening of the history sheet, but in the counter-affidavit the respondents have annexed a list of 9 cases in which the petitioner was involved. However, it is not disputed that in all the cases, except the last one which is pending trial, the accused had either been acquitted or discharged. So far, he has not been convicted in any case. In fact, according to the petitioner and conceded by the respondents, no case was registered against him in Items 1 and 6 of the list of cases while in the case FIR No. 22 dt. 23-1-70 under Section 392, I.P.C., the petitioner was acquitted of the charge by the order of Additional District Judge, Delhi on 11-4-1972.

10. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that in cases where the accused stand acquitted, either on the ground that the evidence was not acceptable or by giving benefit of doubt to that, the result in law would be the same; it would mean that he did not take part in the offence. The case of the petitioner is rather on a better footing, inasmuch as he has earned discharged in two cases, acquitted in three cases while two other resulted in compromise.

11. From the perusal of the list of cases annexed with the counter, I further find that from January, 1970, till the middle of 1973, the petitioner was not facing any trial and practically from the middle of 1975, till the middle of 1984 practically, he was not at all concerned in any criminal case. In such a situation, it is just not possible for any person what to talk of a reasonable police officer to infer that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that he is addicted to crime and cannot be prevented unless and until his history sheet is opened and his name is brought on the Surveillance Register. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that the respondents took an objective view of the matter in making out a case for the opening of a history sheet and bringing the name of the petitioner on the Surveillance Register.

12. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the orders of the respondents. The name of the petitioner be removed from the Register No. X Part II and his history sheet be closed forthwith.