Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 304
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.K.Srivastava, J.
Nupinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Writ Petition No. 769 of 1994,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 15, 1996
The entry of a person's name in the Surveillance Register Part-II under Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, based on the police's reasonable belief that they are a habitual offender, is subject to judicial review, and the court may order the removal of the name if there is no reliable material to support the police's belief.
Headnote:
SURVEILLANCE REGISTER - REMOVAL OF NAME - PUNJAB POLICE RULES, 1934 - RULE 23.4(3)(B) - REASONABLE BELIEF OF POLICE OFFICER - HABITUAL OFFENDER - CONVICTION - ACQUITTAL - REMOVAL OF NAME FROM SURVEILLANCE REGISTER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch and member of the Block Samiti, challenged the entry of his name in the Surveillance Register Part-II maintained by the police under Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in criminal cases and acquitted in all of them. The police contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender and his name was entered in the register based on reasonable belief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found 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. The court held that there was no reliable material for holding a reasonable suspicion in law about the petitioner being an habitual offender, and the continuance of his name in the Surveillance Register would be wholly unjustified.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's name could be entered in the Surveillance Register Part-II based on the police's reasonable belief that he was a habitual offender, even though he was acquitted in all criminal cases? 2. Whether the petitioner's name should be removed from the Surveillance Register in the absence of any reliable material to support the police's belief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police's reasonable belief that a person is a habitual offender, even in the absence of a conviction, may be sufficient to justify the entry of their name in the Surveillance Register Part-II under Rule 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. However, in the present case, the court found that there was no reliable material to support the police's belief that the petitioner was a habitual offender. The court also noted that the petitioner held an elected post and was acquitted in all criminal cases, which further weakened the police's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the Surveillance Register Part-II and destroy any photographs of him maintained at the police station.
K.K.Srivastava, J.
1. 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.
2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he comes from a respectable family and his grandfather S. Joginder Singhs 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 part-II could be justified.
3. 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, inter-alia, 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
