ANWARUL HASAN Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POLICE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case which are very brief are thus. The Petitioner was employed as an Honorary Secretary under the Co operative Consumers Stores, Refah -I -Am. Sub -Area, Police Station Wazir ganj, Lucknow. He was prosecuted after he had left that employment for an offence under Section 408 IPC for the alleged miss appropriation of a sum of Rs. 9/ -. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under the said section but on appeal this Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him. As a result of his conviction by the Sessions Judge the police authorities of Police Station Wazirganj started a history sheet of Class B in his case under paragraph 228 of the Police Regulations. The Petitioner since his acquittal is employed as a Manager at Unnao Naresh Hotel, Lucknow. He is also working as a part -time accountant in Ram Bhandar, Aminabad, Lucknow. However, as a consequence of the history sheet opened against him he is subjected to police surveillance and his movements also are continually watched by police officers. He has complained and perhaps not without reason, that this action on the part of the police is affecting his professional career. He has gone to the extent of complaining that it infringes his right to trade and freedom of movement. It will not be necessary in this case to embark on a discussion whether the action does really affect any such right adversely, as I consider that the action of the Police authorities cannot be justified under the provisions of paragraph 228 itself which authorises them to open history sheets in the case of certain criminals. It will be noticed that the Petitioner had to his credit one prosecution for an -offence under Section 408 IPC which ended in his acquittal ultimately. There is no suggestion of any other prosecution or other instance in which he might have been suspected of similar or other offence committed by him. I particularly asked the learned Standing Counsel, in view of the complete silence of the counter -affidavit produced on behalf of the police, to place before the Court material on which action under paragraph 228 was decided. He has informed that the original document on which the history sheet was opened in 1953 is not to be found. Whatever the position, therefore, be the fact remained that there is only one instance against the Petitioner in which he was accused of misappropriation of a paltry sum of Rs. 9/ - which too ended in his acquittal.

(2.) PARA . 228 of the Police Regulations provides that history -sheets shall be opened only for persons who are or are likely to be habitual criminals or the aiders or abettors of such criminals. A history -sheet of Class B will be opened in the case of, as laid down in this paragraph, for confirmed and professional criminals. The subsequent description also in Clause (2) of this paragraph confirms that a history -sheet can be started in the case of habitual criminals who are not likely to mend their ways. The question that immediately arises, therefore, is whether a person of the description, as the Petitioner, can be said to be a confirmed criminal or a person who is not likely to mend his ways. It is impossible in my opinion to condemn a man as a confirmed and professional criminal or a habitual criminal because he happened to be prosecuted for an offence of misappropriation once only and it, too, to end in acquittal ultimately. The power of the police under paragraph 228 to start a history -sheet against a person is circumscribed by the condition that the person concerned is a confirmed and professional criminal. If this description is not fulfilled in any particular case the power to start a history -sheet does not belong to the Police. No doubt the action taken by the police under paragraph 228 is administrative in nature, but even an administrative action, if it is an action taken without jurisdiction, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. This Court will not necessarily interfere with every administrative action which may turn out to be without jurisdiction but where the action complained of affects the career of a person and may adversely affect him in his future life the Court will not hesitate to remedy the wrong. A history sheet of Class B continues for the whole life of the person concerned which means that a permanent stigma attaches to him and it can affect adversely his career throughout his life. It is, therefore, a fit case in which in spite of the fact that it is an administrative order this Court will intervene.