The police cannot prepare a history sheet or the surveillance register by simply instituting a number or cases in quick succession and then to make out a case that he is a -criminal by habit formed by repetition of crimes.

( 1 ) ACCORDING to the police the reports were received against the petitioner that he was carrying on speculation in silver which was prohibited under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. In respect of the violations of the said Act, nine cases were lodged against him u/ss. 21 and 22 thereof. Five out of those resulted in discharge or aqcuittal. Four were cancelled by the police itself. 3 cases were instituted after the emergency was imposed. On 3. 3. 76, S. H. O. Kotwali submitted a report that the petitioner in spite of these prosecutions did not refrain from speculation in silver and other commodities and required to be watched. A history-sheet is required to be prepared so that proper surveillance be kept on him. He requested that his name be directed to be entered in Bundle "a" and in the Register No. 10 Part II. The S. P. agreed with this suggestion on 22. 3. 76. On 30. 3. 76 a report was lodged against him in the Kotwali showing that he continued to indulge in speculation. The report was sent to the Forward Transaction Commission, Bombay, and investigation is said to be pending in that case. He had been arrested on 2-2-76, for repeated violation of the said Act and produced before the S. D. M. u/s 110 (f) Cr. P. C. but was discharged on 3. 2. 76. He was sent for by the Kotwali on 19. 3. 76 so that his thumb impression could be taken as the same were necessary to be kept in official record. Detention orders under MISA were issued against the petitioner but he went underground until revocation of the emergency. Action againskt him was taken because he was habitual offender but no restriction was placed on his movement, nor was he shadowed by the police. A watch was of course kept on his activities. No restriction on his business was imposed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged all these allegations and has stated that he is a propertied person and is an assessee both for income tax and sales-tax. He holds a gold licence issued by the Del Administration. He was appointed by his community to manage its properties and he is the executive member of the Bullion Sarafa Association for the last several years. His sons Sudarshan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar are money-lenders holding a valid licence ; Ramesh Kumar is an income-tax assessee too. Forward Transactions in silver were stopped in the year 1952 but sale and purchase of silver by a person holding a licence was never prohibited. The police ected upon suspicion, but all their raids and cases instituted by them ended in failure. He alleged that on 25-1-76, police officers came and demanded of him Rs. 2,000. 00 at the instance of the Youth Congress. He refused and he was taken to the Kotwali on 2-2-76 and arrested u/s. 110 (f) and 41 (2) Cr. P. C. on the ground that he was one of the persons who were shouting that they would allow the prices of silver to fall and would carry on business of brokers of silver and would see how the Government controlled the prices of silver. He was produced before he Magistrate and bailed out after several days. In spite of this, police continued to bring pressure on him fora donation of Rs. 2. 000. 00 and the petitioner had to close his shop. On 19. 2. 76, the police had raided his house and arrested his son Sudershan Kumar u/s 110 (f) Cr. P. C. on the ground that he was shouting that he would not allow the Government to succeed in controlling the prices of silver and that he himself would not stop speculation in silver. Sudershan Kumar was discharged on 27-9-76 by the order of the S. D. M. when the petitioner appeared in the court on 18-3-78 the police Kotwali arrested him and he was compelled ro give his finger prints. He somehow managed to slip away. The police then obtained orders of detention and warrants of attachments of his property under MISA. It was on 8. 3. 77, that the detention order was revoked. His wife, Mrs. Shakuntala Devi, made an application in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against the attachment of