MOHD. SAFI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court, headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and another Hon'ble Judge of this Court. The reference relates to a provision in the U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "Police Regulations"), which is also presently in force in the State of Uttarakhand. The provision of law relates to a "history-sheet" and as to how a history-sheet is to be opened in a particular given case. Whereas the earlier Division Bench of this Court had held that the opening of a history-sheet was wrong in that particular case, as the Division Bench was of the opinion that the concerned person (i.e. petitioner) was not a habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals, as there were no criminal case against him, the present Division Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, has referred to a provision in the Police Regulations i.e. Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which says that history-sheet can be opened not only when a person who is a habitual criminal or abettors of such criminal, but also in a case where he is "likely to become" such. This aspect has not been considered by the earlier bench. For the ready reference of this Court Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police Regulation is quoted hereunder:

(2.) The reference made by the Division Bench is as follows:-

(3.) Hence what has now fallen for our determination is whether in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench and in the light of the provision contained in the Regulation 228 and other provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations, where a history-sheet can be opened not only in a case where a person is considered to be a confirmed criminal but also where he is "likely to become" one, what are the considerations before the Police Authorities before they come to the determination that a person is "likely to become" a habitual criminal or abettors of such criminal, as this particular aspect i.e. the likelihood of a person becoming a habitual criminal ar abettor was not determined earlier by this Court. What are the parameters and what are the considerations thereupon to be followed in such cases by the police?