Point of Law: A person has to have three cases of convictions which would bring him within domain of definition of “Habitual Offender.”

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and impugned order dated 18.12.2002 (Annex.1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pali, directing opening the history sheet of the petitioner as well as consequential history-sheet opened against the petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set aside”.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that in pursuance of the impugned order dated 18.12.2002, the history sheet was opened against the petitioner, on the ground that 10 cases were registered against him.

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as under:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories prescribed in Rule 4.4. of the Rajasthan Police Rules. 1965 as to warrant the entering of his name in the surveillance register. The condition for entering the name of a person in the surveillance register is that a person has to be either a proclaimed offender or who has been convicted twice or more than twice for the offence mentioned in Rule 8.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rule 1965 Therefore, opening of impugned the history sheet is absolutely unwarranted and illegal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that total 10 cases were registered against petitioner; he was acquitted in 8 cases, while 2 cases were closed on the basis of compromise. Therefore, the petitioner is not convicted even in a single case. Thus, it is clear that the order regarding opening of the impugned history sheet is unsustainable in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the last case, against the petitioner, was registered in the year 2007 and thereafter, even a single case was registered against him; the petitioner is ward member in the Municipal Board, Sadari, Distt. Pali, and thus, he is a responsible member of society.

7. On the other hand, learned GA-cum-AAG Mr. MA Siddiqui assisted by Mr. AR Malkani opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was validly declared as a history sheeter, as the concerned Superintendent of Police came to such conclusion, after duly looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material available before him.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case.

9. This Court finds that the aforementioned brief background of the case, as reproduced hereinabove, pursuant to the necessary details having been furnished by the GA-cum-AAG, and the same reveals that total 10 cases were registered against the petitioner; he was an acquitted in 8 cases, while 2 cases were closed on the basis of compromise.

10. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by this Court in Diwan Singh Vs. State And Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1305/2016 decided on 19.09.2022), which was also pertaining to opening of the history-sheet; relevant portion of which reads a