Nupinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner Nupinder Singh, Sarpanch, resident of village Jhindwala, District Faridkot filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the name and photograph of the petitioner from the record i.e. the Register of surveillance maintained under rule 23.4 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short rules of 1934). The said register is called Surveillance register No. 10 and maintained in form 23.4(1). This register, it is averred in the writ petition, shows the names of bad characters and photographs of such persons whose names are entered in the said register are also kept and displayed at the concerned police section. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner has been so registered in the said register No. 10 in accordance with the Rules of 1934.

The primary contention of the petitioner is that he comes from a respectable family and his grandfather S. Joginder Singh''s brother namely S. Narinder Singed was a member of parliament and one of his uncles was also a member of parliament. The petitioner himself is holding an elected post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat upon his election held recently in the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner has also been elected as member of the Block Samiti by obtaining highest votes among other candidates. A photocopy of the identity card issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Faridkot has been annexed as Annexure P1 this petition. The petitioner owned about 16 acres of land, a copy of the jama of bandi has been filed as Annexure P2 with this petition. He also holds huge property at Delhi, Muktsar and in Himachal Pradesh. Politically he was having Akali background and owing his allegiance to the Akali Dal (A). Previously he had his allegiance with the group of Sh. Simranjit Singh Mann and had ideological differences with S. Parkash Singh Baldal who hails from that area and the petitioner belongs to the group which is an opponent of the Congress party. It is alleged that in this background the political opponents of the petitioners had not left any chance to implicate the petitioner in false criminal cases. The petitioner has further averred that there is no material worthy of reliance with the respondents on the basis of which the entry of the name of the petitioner in the said register in partII could be justified.

A notice of motion was issued to the respondents. Reply to the petition was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 by Shri Hardial Singh, Deputy Supdt. of Police, Muktsar, District Faridkot alleging, interalia, that the history sheet of a person is opened as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which provide as under:

"23.4 (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in Form 23.4(1).

(2) In Part 1 of such register shall be entered the names of persons commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned who belonged to one or more of the following classes;

(a) All persons who have been proclaimed under Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom an order under Section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence is suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government made under section 16 of the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918.

(3) In part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the 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 Sections 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: This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein.

23.5(1) The Surveillance Register shall be written up by the officer in charge of the police station personally or by an Assistant Sub Inspector in a clear and neat script. No entry shall be made in Part II except by the order of the Superintendent, who is strictly prohibited from delegating this authority. No entry shall be made in part 1 except by the order of a gazetted officer. Entries shall be made either under the personal direction of, or on receipt of a written order from an officer authorised by this rule to make them. In the latter case original orders shall be attached to the register until the entry has been attested and dated by a gazetted officer.

(2) 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 history sheet, the Superintendent is of opinion that such person should be subjected to Surveillance he shall enter his name in part II of the Surveillance Register; provided that the names 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.

The record of such reasons shall be treated as confidential and the persons concerned shall not be entitled to a copy thereof.

23.9. (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 history sheet 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 persons."

It has also been contend that in nutshell reasonable belief of police officer that the suspect is habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under the aforesaid rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). The suspect may or may not have been committed of any crime. It has also been averred that even apart from conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that such person is a habitual offender. On facts, it was alleged that the petitioner fell in the company of bad characters and indulged in commission of robbery, murder and cases under the Arms Act. It was as per recommendation of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police that the name of the petitioner was ordered to be placed in bundle ''A'' vide order dated 25.6.1979 passed by the then S.S.P., Faridkot. Meaning thereby that an order was passed by the S.S.P. to enter the name of the petitioner in Surveillance Register, PartII. The name of the petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 616 of the Surveillance Register. Copies of FIR Nos. 298/78, P.S. Sadar Muktsar and 77/78 P.S. City Malout were appended as Annexures R1 and R2 and their translations are annexures RI/T and R2/T respectively. In addition to it the petitioner was also arrested in the following cases:

Case FIR No. 94 dated 20.9.1978 u/s 395/397 IPC, Police Station Keshri Singh Pura, District Ganga Nagar.

Case FIR No. 591/78, u/s 79/411 IPC, Police Station Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

Case FIR No. 528 dated 20.12.2980, u/s 302/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Station, Jalalabad, District Ferozepur.

Case FIR No. 338 dated 5.10.1981, U/s 395/397 IPC, Police Station Dabwali, District Sirsa (Harayana).

Case FIR No. 313 dated 15.9.1986, U/s 3/4/5/6 TDA (P) Act, Police Station Sadar Muktsar.

Case FIR No. 322 dated 27.9.1986, U/s 25 Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Muktsar.

Case FIR No. 68 dated 7.10.1988, U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and 5/6 TDA (P) Act, Police Station Sadar Kot Kapura.

Case FIR No. 42 dated 19.3.1993, U/s 429/323 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Muktsar.

The reply further shows that the petitioner was acquitted in all the cases shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 7 while the case mentioned at Sr. No. 8 remained untraced and report was submitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate. From these cases, it was mentioned, the respondent formed an opinion about the petitioner being a habitual offender requiring of surveillance which had been pointed out by the concerned officers from time to time. It was categorically denied that the photograph of the petitioner has been displayed though it was admitted that history sheet qua the petitioner is in existence.

A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner wherein in para 6 it was mentioned that:

"The petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 298 dated 7.8.1978 under Section 382 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Muktsar and FIR No. 177 dated 21.10.1978, Police Station City Malout under Section 397 and in both the cases was convicted on 23.2.1979 by Sh. M.L. Merchia, District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot. But however, the petitioner was acquitted in the above cases in Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1979 and 367 of 1979 by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan."

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the facts and circumstances of the case as set out above, it is abundantly clear that the police could not secure a conviction against the petitioner in any of the criminal cases and he was acquitted in those cases either by the trial Court or in appeal. That being so, there is no such material now existing with the respondent from which the continuance of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register, Part II may be permitted to be continued. It would not be appropriate and proper that the petitioner who is holder of an elected post of Sarpanch through the election held for the Panchayat Samitis as also for the Block Samitis of which he was elected as a member and in the absence of any reliable material for holding a reasonable suspicion in law about the petitioner being an habitual offender, the continuance of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register would be wholly unjustified. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register PartII and in case his photograph is being kept and maintained at the police station, the same shall be destroyed. Let these directions be carried out by the respondents without fail and expeditiously, preferably within a month from the date of receipt of order from this Court or a certified copy thereof from the petitioner.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment.