LAWS(P&H)-1975-3-17

MOHINDER SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Decided On March 26, 1975
MOHINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh Bains The petitioner, who is a resident of village Ram Nagar alias Kasaiwala, Police Station Maur, tahsil and district Bhatinda, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directing the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from Register No. X or any other register maintained for entering the names of bad characters in the Police Station Maur and further restraining the respondents from demanding a photograph of the petitioner or calling him in the police station.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the petitioner was sentenced in the year 1948 to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of this conviction, his name was entered in the surveillance register Part II in the Police Station Maur under Rule 23. 4 of the Punjab Police Rules. This entry was cancelled on 1st May, 1956, by the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner was subsequently tried under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but was acquitted in the year 1952, Again he was challaned under the Indian Arms Act and was acquitted. Subsequently, his personal history-sheet was started by the. respondents. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A bare reading of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 23. 4 shows that the Superintendent of Police can enter the name of any person who has been convicted twice or more than twice of offences mentioned in Rule 27. 29; or a person who is reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or receiver of stolen property whether he has been convicted or not or persons under security under Section 109 or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; or convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions. Then there is a Note which clearly shows that this rule must be strictly construed and entries must be confined to the names of the persons falling in the four classes named therein.