Amar Pal Singh vs Delhi Administration And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 165 Del

JUDGMENT

Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.

(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a view to challenge the opening of history sheet by police station Subzi Mandi, Delhi, against the petitioner. The petitioner has detailed a long history as to how he came to be involved in various false cases and the background in which the history-sheet was opened against him

(2) For purposes of disposal of this petition, it is not necessary for me to go through all these details. Suffice to say that the history-sheet was admittedly opened against the petitioner on 8/5/1982 under the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi.

(3) In the counter affidavit, respondent Sho, Subzi Mandi, has given details about five cases which were registered at different times against the petitioner. According to him on review of the activities of the petitioner it was felt that the petitioner is a desperate character and is reasonably believed to be a habitual offender and, therefore, his history-sheet was opened. It is further stated that there was complete justification for opening the history sheet in view of the continuous course of criminal conduct of the petitioner.

(4) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I must at once state that para 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is an Imperial heritage and an anachronism; it confers unguided powers on officers who are not trained in the judicious exercise of discretion. If it lays down no guidelines for the exercise of that power the result is that it no more fits into our constitutional scheme. Unfortunately, at no stage has this aspect of the matter been considered. Since e opening of history-sheet does affect the dignity and honour of a person and since it attaches a stigma, the least that should be done is to add a provision that before opening a history-sheet the person affected be. afforded an opportunity of being heard, or a provision for review may be added. That might in a way meet the requirement of our constitutional scheme. However, before any such thing is done, the court is bound by the rules as they are. In para 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, the police is duty bound to maintain law and order and to prevent the commission of crime and it is for that reason that such powers at a particular stage of history were given to them with a view to keep an eye on elements who might reasonably be believed to be persons habitually addicted to crime. In the present scheme of things, these powers need not be exercised mechanically but with due regard to the rights and dignity of a citizen and after due application of mind. In order to see that a person is reasonably believed to be addicted to crime the authority concerned must have due regard to the material which is pressed into service for arriving at such a conclusion. The belief must be that of a reasonable and prudent man. It cannot be a fanciful belief.

(5) Withthisinrftind, examine the facts of the present case. The first case under Section 379 Ipg against the petitioner was registered in 1972; the second case under Section 354/34 Indian Penal Code was registered seven (lays thereafter ; the third case under Section 420 Indian Penal Code was registered in August 1974, the fourth case under Section 399/402 is of 1980 while the fifth case under Section 25/54/59Arms Act is also of the same date. These seem to be two cases in respect of the same incident. The petitioner states that he is. acquitted in all the cases. In the counter-affidavit he is shown to have been convicted for six months. Mr. Chaudhary states that the petitioner was acquitted in appeal. That the petitioner was acquitted in all the cases has not been specifically denied. The only admission made is that in case under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code he has been acquitted. It is this set of cases which has 296 been made the basis for opening of the history-sheet and putting the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. Even though the last offence was allegedly committed in July 1980, no action was taken against the petitioner till then. It was only in May, 1982 that the decision regarding opening of history-sheet against the petitioner was taken. What was the satisfaction arrived at by the decision taking authority has not been spelled out. All that is stated is that the police has a right under the rules to open a history sheet if a person is believed to be habitually addicted to crime. As for the rules, it cannot be denied. But the real question that arises is whether there was any justification for opening the history sheet against the petitioner. This question can only be answered in the affirmative if the material on which the satisfaction is based reasonably leads to such a conclusion. Indeed, conviction in criminal cases is not a condition precedent to the opening of history-sheet , but then the ground for acquittal cannot be ignored while arriving at a satisfaction. In order to arrive at a reasonable belief these grounds must necessarily be taken into consideration. In the case of the petitioner, the first two offences were allegedly committed in September 1972. Thereafter, there was full for two years. In August 1974 the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in another crime under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter there was again a gap of six years when the petitioner is stated to have indulged in offences under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code and under Arms Act. This in short is supposed to be the criminal involvement and history of the petitioner. The very fact that there has been a lapse of almost six years between the third, fourth and fifth offences is indicative that the petitioner is not an offender who can be characterized as a habitual offender. After 1980 till the date of opening of history-sheet nothing adverse is on record against the petitioner. We are now in 1987. Right from 1982 till date there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, looking at the history of the petitioner even in 1982, it could never be said about the petitioner that he is a person who is habitually addicted to crime. Before a person is said to be habitually addicted to crime, it must be borne out of the material that he has indulged in a continuous course of criminal conduct which disqualifies him from being a respectful citizen and renders him a bad character. In that view of the matter, I believe that there was no justification for opening a history sheet against the petitioner. It is very unfortunate that inspite of the fact that in the last seven years the petitioner has not shown any criminal propensity, his case was not reviewed, as provided by para 23.12. In my view, his history-sheet should have been transferred by now to his personal file. Mr. Sodhi stated that the petitioner's name has now been brought out of the Surveillance Register and the police is only maintaining a history which is a confidential document and it does not affect the rights of the petitioner. Indeed, history-sheet is a confidential document but then the very fact that it has been opened has certain consequences against the petitioner. In any case, assuming though not granting, that there was a justification for opening the history-sheet in 1982, in view of his conduct for the last seven years there was no justification to retain the same.

(6) With these observations, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the history-sheet maintained against the petitioner in police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi, be closed.