1. - By the present petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged police proceedings initiated by the S.H.O., Pilibanga opening history-sheet against the petitioner in the police surveillance register.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner Babulal is 50 years old person, residing in Ward No. 3, Mandi, Pilibanga (Distt. Hanumangarh). He argues that petitioner is innocent and has not been convicted previously by any Court to suffer imprisonment. He contends that as per Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 there is procedure for opening history-sheet against any person and according to sub-para 3(a), Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 the Superintendent of Police has been given discretion to enter the name of a person of the categories mentioned in para 2, who has been convicted twice or more than twice for offences enumerated in Rule 822. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to illwill against the petitioner, the S.H.O., Pilibanga has proceeded to initiate history-sheet against the petitioner which is in contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and it is gross abuse of the power conferred by the rules upon the police.

3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and he was asked to call the surveillance register for the perusal of the Court. According to the surveillance register, there are 10 cases against the petitioner, including a complaint under Section 110, Cr.P.C. In none of the cases, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment though, in one case, a fine of Rs. 800/- was imposed upon him for offence under Section 3/4, R.P.G.O. It is further obvious from the surveillance register that out of seven cases against the petitioner, five cases are for offence under Section 3/4, R.P.G.O., one case is for alleged offence under Section 3/7, E.C. Act and one case allegedly for violation under Section 110, Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon order of this Court, reported in 2006(1) R. Cr.D. 254 (Raj.), passed in the case of Krlshanlal v. State of Rajasthan. Unless the facts concur with the stipulation of the law, no authority can exercise power in excess of the power conferred by law. The requirement is the person must be convicted twice or more than twice for offences enumerated in Rule 822. That not being the case, the police cannot be permitted to act under Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Thus the proceedings sought to be initiated and maintained against the petitioner,is unwarranted and against the provisions of the rules.

5. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned history-sheet proceedings at Police Station, Pilibanga, initiated against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed.

*******