( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash an alleged order made by the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, directing the opening of a "history Sheet", "class B", in respect of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner was that his history sheet had been wrongly opened. It was further alleged by him that he had been wrongly put in a class E History Sheet as the petitioner was not a professional or a habitual criminal nor had he been convicted for any of those offences for which a History sheet of Class B could be opened.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, case was that the police acted maliciously, inasmuch as, they had not acted in the public interest, but action had been taken because certain rich persons manoeuvered with the police to have them take action against the petitioner. The petitioner set out several little incidents which took place between the petitioner on the one hand, and the police on the other, to substantiate his plea of mala fides of the police.

( 4 ) TWO questions were raised for consideration by counsel appearing in the case. First, whether the action taken by the police in this particular case was mala fide. The second question that was raised was, unlike the first question, a question of law and the question that was raised was whether the police had any right to open a History Sheet of a citizen and further whether the police bad a right to classify History Sheets into two categories A and B as indicated in the police Regulations.

( 5 ) WE shall first take up the question of fact: The police, in opposition to the assertion of the petitioner that he had no conviction against him, maintained that he had. On the affidavits, filed by the parties in the case we have no hesitation in holding that the police were, if nothing else, guilty of suppressio veri as also suggestio falsi in regard to the fact of the petitioner having been a previous convict. The counter affidavit put in by the sub-inspector, Harpal Singh, who was the station Officer-in-charge of Police Station Amroha, where the petitioner resided, as also the affidavit put in by the Circle Inspector, Girraj Singh, in our opinion did not fairly put the facts before the Court for these affidavits were open to the criticism that the police officers, who verified these affidavits attempted to prevaricate in regard to allegations made by the petitioner, allegation which should have been dealt with in their counter affidavits in a straightforward and direct manner. A scrutiny by us of the affidavits on the record drives us to the conclusion that action by the police, in opening a history sheet of the petitioner, was not bona fide.

( 6 ) THE question which we next proceed to consider is whether the police had the right in law, to open a History sheet of a citizen and further whether the police could lawfully classify History sheets into two categories A and B. The determination of this question may appear unnecessary because of our finding on the question of fact. We, however, have thought it necessary to consider these questions also inasmuch as these questions keep cropping up constantly and also because this case was referred by the learned single Judge for our consideration.

( 7 ) THE Police Regulations provide for the opening of history sheets and for surveillance of citizens who, in the public interest, needed being watched.

( 8 ) PARAGRAPH 228 prescribes that history sheets were to be opened for such citizens only who were or were likely to become habitual criminals or abettors of such criminals. The power of the police, if what was provided for in the aforementioned paragraph of the Police Regulations was in the nature of a power, could only be exercised as against a citizen if he either was a habitual criminal or a habitual abettor of such a criminal. The power which appears to have been vested in the police under paragraph 228 of the Police Regulations was a power which, in o