MOHAMMED SHAFI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur placing the petitioner under police surveillance under Regulation Nos. 855 and 856 of the M.P. Police Regulations framed under the Police Act.

(2.) According to the petitioner he is a respectable citizen of Mandsaur and he has got sufficient agricultural land, fruit gardens, hotel and buses operating on the route in M.P. Some officers of the police got biased against the petitioner and, therefore, they took a frivolous action against the petitioner. The petitioner is not engaged in any trade or business of arms, opium, cocaine or any excisable articles. He is not a dangerous criminal leading the life of crime or a security risk to the community. A frivolous case was lodged against the petitioner which was crime No. 330/67, but he has been honourably acquitted by the High Court. Similarly Crime No. 235 of 76 was also registered under Ss. 363 and 506 IPC but he was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur. Earlier in 1979 the petitioner was placed under surveillance but that was also lifted. But surveillance has again been started against the petitioner. Even a history sheet could not be opened against the petitioner in view of paragraph 651 of the Police Regulations. Actually the surveillance is an infringement in the fundamental rights of the petitioners by placing restrictions on the movements of the petitioner and domicilary visits by the police during day and night at the house of the petitioner; all these actions are against the regulations of the Police Manual itself.

(3.) The petition is resisted by the State on the ground that the petitioner although has property and land as shown by him, but actually he is actively involved in the smuggling of opium. Actually conviction in a criminal case is not necessary for starting the surveillance. It has also been stated that the petitioner was convicted for criminal offences. It was actually in view of the activities of the petitioner that he was placed under surveillance in 1979, but it was withdrawn. It has been denied that the photograph and finger impressions of the petitioner are displayed on the notice Board of the Kotwali, Mandsaur. It has also been denied that any attempt was being made to humiliate the petitioner. A history sheet has been opened in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 651 of the Police Manual because such a history sheet can be opened when a person is suspected of being actively involved in the illegal activities. Therefore, the order of surveillance being proper and valid, the petition of the petitioner should be dismissed. List of six cases has been filed in support of the contention.