Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Ram vs Superintendent Of Police, Bhatinda And ... on 17 September, 1969
Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 252
JUDGMENT
1. Shri Sadhu Ram, a businessman of Bhatinda, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction etc, for the quashing of an order dated July 25, 1968, whereby the petitioner's history sheet had been started and his name had been entered in Surveillance Register No. 10 under Rule 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules by the respondents. It was alleged amongst other things that there was no circumstance justifying the opening of the petitioner's History Sheet and the inclusion of his name in the Surveillance Register and that these steps had been taken mala fide and were a gross abuse of their powers by the respondents and that the Police Rules were ultra vires of the Constitution of India as they were an encroachment on the petitioner's fundamental rights. The impugned order was said to have been passed to put pressure on the petitioner to withdraw a complaint filed by him against some police officers of Bhatinda in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda.
2. The allegations in the petition are that on June 26, 1968, during the petitioner's temporary absence from Bhatinda, his house was raided at about 8.30 P.M. but Sub-Inspector Uttam Singh, Head Constable Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Sing, and that some female members of the petitioner's family were threatened and beaten and were made to part with a sum of Rs. 500/-. The incident was witnessed by two neighbours Duni Chand and Chiranji Lal and the latter had sent telegrams to the Chief Minister, Punjab, the same night and to some other authorities the next day. The petitioner and also returned to Bhatinda on June 27, 1968 and had filed a complaint under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 384 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against these police officers in the course of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The complaint had been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate and the complainant was directed to appear before him on 5-7-1968.
The petitioner and his witness Chiranji Lal were, however, arrested by Sub-Inspector Waryam Singh, Station House Officer, Incharge of Kotwali, Bhatinda, on the eve of this hearing while the other witness Duni Chand was arrested from the Court compound early in the morning on the date of hearing. The petitioner's counsel managed to get a date and thereby avoided the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner was produced for remand before a Magistrate on 5-7-1968 and came to know in Court that a false case for theft and criminal trespass had been registered against him and Duni Chand about 3 weeks earlier. They both remained in police custody upto 9-7-1968, when they were released on bail. While they were in police custody they were beaten and threatened to withdraw the complaint against the police officers. The other witness Chiranji Lal had also been kept in police custody and beaten for two days and was let off on 6-7-1968, only after he had been forced to give in writing that the would not support the petitioner in the complaint case and that he had sent the telegrams on June 26/27, 1968 at the instance of some satta gamblers. Chiranji Lal complained in writing about this to respondent No. 1 as soon as he was released on 6-7-1968 and copies of the complaint were sent by him to a number of authorities including the Inspector General of Police and Chief Minister, Punjab. As the arrest of the petitioner and his witness on the eve of the hearing amounted to Contempt of Court, a complaint was also filed by the petitioner in the High Court and was pending before Jindra Lal, J. when this petitioner was instituted. That complaint was Criminal Original No. 114 of 1968 and has been decided on 7-5-1969.
Sub-Inspector Waryam Singh, Station House Officer of Kotwali, Bhatinda and Head Constable Gurcharan Singh have been both sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. During the hearing of that case for contempt of Court the petitioner came to know on December 10, 1968, from the statement of Head Constable Ujaggar Singh recorded by the Sessions Judge at Bhatinda, that his History Sheet had been started and his name entered in the Surveillance Register No. 10 on July 25, 1968 (Annexure B). This was one day after the petitioner's complaint for Contempt of Court had been admitted by Jindra Lal, J. The petitioner denied that he was indulging in Satta gambling and the action of the respondents in starting the petitioner's History Sheet and registering him as a shady character was mala fide and gross abuse of their powers under the Police Rules. The simultaneous opening o the petitioner's History Sheet and his registration in the Surveillance Register were said to be against the Rules and to be not justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. The Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, had been asked to discontinue he petitioner's History Sheet and to strike off his name from th Surveillance Register by a notice served through a counsel but the notice had remained un-acknowledged. Manifest injustice had been done to the petitioner and he had been deprived of his freedom of movement and the right to carry on his trade freely. On these ground sit was prayed that th impugned order of the respondents may be quashed by a writ of certiorari and they may be directed by a writ of mandamus to discontinue the petitioner's History Sheet and to strike off the petitioner's name from the Surveillance Register.
3. Head Constable Surjit Singh has filed an affidavit denying the allegations about the raid and criminal trespass in the petitioner's house on 26-6-1968. The complaint filed by the petitioner on 27-6-1968 was described to be false.
4. Sub-Inspector Waryam Singh, respondent No. 1 denied on affidavit the allegations about mala fides or abuse of powers. According to him the petitioner was a habitual offender as he indulged in Satta gambling. The petitioner had been convicted in 1951 under Section 409, Indian Penal Code and had undergone imprisonment for three years. He had been challanged in 5 cases of Satta gambling between the years 1957 and 1964 and one case of Satta gambling was pending against him. He had been convicted in one of these cases in 1964-65. The opening of the petitioner's History Sheet and registration of his name in the Surveillance Register were justified under the Police Rules. The material against him had been duly considered and found to be reasonably sufficient to justify a report by respondent No. 1. Shri Sukhpal Singh, respondent No. 3, who was at that time the Superintendent of Police at Bhatinda, duly considered this report of respondent No. 1 and found sufficient material to justify the opening of the petitioner's History Sheet and for registering his name in the Surveillance Register in accordance with the provisions of the Police Rules. The action taken was bona fide and strictly in accordance with the rules. No fundamental right of the petitioner had been infringed and the Police rules were intra vires of the Constitution of India, Shri Gursharn Singh who had taken over as Superintendent of Police at Bhatinda in July, 1968 had duly considered the notice served by the petitioner through a counsel and had found that there was no ground for discontinuing the History Sheet of the petitioner or for the removal of his name from the Surveillance Register.
5. The petition is silent about the previous convictions and challans of the petitioner under the Gambling Ac and his conviction for criminal breach of trust and the counsel for the respondents argues that the petition should be dismissed because material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. He relies on a Division Bench ruling in Narain Dass v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 Punj 193 which had followed U. C. Rekhi v. Income-tax Officer, New Delhi, AIR 1951 Simla 1. A party is given some choice in the drafting of his pleadings in a manner best suited to his purpose and there was no obligation imposed on the petitioner to say anything as regards the shady side of his personality. It was for the respondents to bring out the facts justifying action under the Police Rules against the petitioner which imposed certain restrictions on his free movements and advocation in life. Particulars about the petitioner's previous convictions and challans are not being disputed by the petitioner's counsel and the petitioner cannot be thrown out simply because the petitioner elected not to say anything with regard to his antecedents. Allegations of mala fides have been made against the respondents and the ill-timed arrest of the petitioner and his witnesses when his complaint against Respondent No. 1 and other police officer was due to be heard by a court may call for my looking further into the case. It has been found that these arrests amounted in a Contempt of Court and the Station House Officer, respondent No. 1 and a Constable have been convicted and sentenced by Jindra Lal, J. (Criminal Original No. 114 of 1968, decided on 7-5-1969).
6. The petitioner's counsel has challenged the vires of the Police Rules. The matter is concluded by a Division Bench ruling of this court in Tirlok Singh Gurdit Singh Rajput v. Supdt. of Police, Ferozepur, AIR 1959 Punj 323. It was held that a Surveillance Register kept under Police Rules is no more than a confidential Police record which enables the Police to perform its duties more efficiently. Maintaining such Register is not unconstitutional. There is no doubt that to apprehend a person who is not alleged to have committed a crime or to restrict his liberty in any way, would be illegal, but to keep watch over a bad character cannot be said to infringe any right given to him under the Constitution or by any law. The rules quite clearly lay down that the surveillance register is a confidential document and an entry made in it does not affect the personal liberty of the individual in any way. Therefore, it is not necessary that any notice should be given to the person concerned before his name is entered in this register. If his personal liberty is at any time interfered with then the aggrieved person has a clear remedy under law. In this case Tirlok Singh petitioner had been prosecuted under Section 454, Indian Penal Code and even though his prosecution had been dropped the order of the Superintendent of Police entering petitioner's name in the Surveillance Register No. 10 was upheld.
The correctness and legality of an order opening a History Sheet and entering petitioner's name in the Surveillance Register under Rules 23.4, 23.9 and 23.10 of the Punjab Police Rules was again under consideration in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, AIR 1966 SC 1766, and it was held that for the efficient discharge of their duties the police officers are empowered by the Punjab Police Rule (2934) to open the history sheets of suspects and to enter their names in police register No. 10. These powers are required to be exercised with caution and in strict conformity with the rules. The condition precedent to the opening of history sheets under Rule 23.9 (2) is that the suspect is a person "reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to the crime or to be an aider or abettor of such person". Similarly, the condition precedent under Rule 23.4(3) (b) for the entry of the names of the suspects in part II of the police register No. 10, is that they are "persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property, whether they have been convicted or not." In order to justify his action, the belief of the police officer must be a reasonable belief, i.e. it must be based on reasonable grounds. The police officer is not, however, required by Rules 23.4 and 23.5, to disclose the grounds upon which he arrived at his finding or to say that he reasonably believed in the finding.
But mere belief is not enough. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender. In that case the petitioner had been charged with the offence of forging Railway tickets and receipts on three occasions and he had been discharge din two cases while his conviction had been set aside on appeal by the High Court in the third case. The petitioner in that case had not been convicted even once for the commission of any offence. IN spite of these facts an order opening petitioner's history sheet and registering him as a shady character was upheld because the Police officers entertained a reasonable belief that the petitioner was a habitual offender. The petitioner's counsel in this case has drawn my attention to the definition of a 'habitual offender' in Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952 (act No. 12 of 1952) but this definition can be used only for the interpretation of the provisions of that particular Act and is not to be generally applied for the interpretation of provisions of or the rules made under, other Acts.
The Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952, was enacted to make provisions for the registration of habitual offenders and for imposing certain restrictions on their movements and the object of the Police Rules invoked in the present case may also appear to be almost the same. The Police Rules, however, do not stand repealed by the Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952, and as long as they are in force, there is no bar to a Superintendent of Police taking action under the Police Rules. According to the definition in the said Act, a person would be a habitual offender only if he has been convicted twice of any one or more of the scheduled offences within a continuous period of five years and who as a result of such convictions suffered imprisonment for a total period of 12 months or more. In spite of the coming into force of the said Act in 1952, the Supreme Court had held in 1966 in Dhanji Ram Sharma's case, AIR 1966 SC 1766 (supra) that the history sheet of a person could be started and his name entered in the Surveillance Register under the Police Rules if there was reason to believe that he was a habitual offender and that this could be done even if the person had not been convicted of any crime even once.
7. The petitioner has made allegations of mala fides against the respondents. It is true that the arrest of the petitioner and his witnesses, cited in the complaint case, was rather ill-timed, but some Police Officer of the lower rank were responsible for the Contempt of Court and they have suffered for their irresponsible conduct. We have, however, the affidavits of two police officers of the high rank of Superintendents of Police that they found enough material against the petitioner to justify their opening his History Sheet and for making an entry of his name in the Surveillance Register in accordance with the Police Rules. The petitioner's request for removal of his name from the Surveillance Register has also been duly considered by a Superintendent of Police. It was observed by Narula, J. in Kanhaya Lal Khatri v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, 1967 Ser LR (Punj & Har) 623, that charges of mala fide are easy to make but difficult to rebut and the Courts are normally reluctant to go into such controversial questions unless it is necessary to do so in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In this case I find that the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner have been successfully rebutted y the respondents and that there were just and reasonable grounds for proceedings against the petitioner under Rules 23.4., 23.5, 23.9 and 23.10 of the Police Rules.
The word 'ordinarily' in Police Rule 23.5 (2) does not make it incumbent on the Superintendent of Police to open a History Sheet before the name of a habitual offender can be entered into the Surveillance Register and there can be exceptional circumstances in which both these measures can be taken simultaneously. The petitioner has two convictions for serious offences to his credit and has been challenged about half a dozen times. There was sufficient material against him and he tried to avert action under the Police Rules by being over-baring. Things had got too thick and he precipitated his registration as a habitual offender by his own conduct. The respondents have taken action in valid exercise of powers conferred on them by the Police Rules.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Petition dismissed.