NUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner Nupinder Singh, Sarpanch, resident of village Jhindwala, District Faridkot filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the name and photograph of the petitioner from the record i.e. the Register of surveillance maintained under rule 23.4 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short rules of 1934). The said register is called Surveillance register No. 10 and maintained in form 23.4(1). This register, it is averred in the writ petition, shows the names of bad characters and photographs of such persons whose names are entered in the said register are also kept and displayed at the concerned police section. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner has been so registered in the said register No. 10 in accordance with the Rules of 1934.

(2.) THE primary contention of the petitioner is that he comes from a respectable family and his grandfather S. Joginder Singh's brother namely S. Narinder Singed was a member of parliament and one of his uncles was also a member of parliament. The petitioner himself is holding an elected post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat upon his election held recently in the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner has also been elected as member of the Block Samiti by obtaining highest votes among other candidates. A photocopy of the identity card issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Faridkot has been annexed as Annexure P1 this petition. The petitioner owned about 16 acres of land, a copy of the jama of bandi has been filed as Annexure P2 with this petition. He also holds huge property at Delhi, Muktsar and in Himachal Pradesh. Politically he was having Akali background and owing his allegiance to the Akali Dal (A). Previously he had his allegiance with the group of Sh. Simranjit Singh Mann and had ideological differences with S. Parkash Singh Baldal who hails from that area and the petitioner belongs to the group which is an opponent of the Congress party. It is alleged that in this background the political opponents of the petitioners had not left any chance to implicate the petitioner in false criminal cases. The petitioner has further averred that there is no material worthy of reliance with the respondents on the basis of which the entry of the name of the petitioner in the said register in part-II could be justified.

(3.) IT has also been contend that in nut-shell reasonable belief of police officer that the suspect is habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under the aforesaid rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). The suspect may or may not have been committed of any crime. It has also been averred that even apart from conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that such person is a habitual offender. On facts, it was alleged that the petitioner fell in the company of bad characters and indulged in commission of robbery, murder and cases under the Arms Act. It was as per recommendation of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police that the name of the petitioner was ordered to be placed in bundle 'A' vide order dated 25.6.1979 passed by the then S.S.P., Faridkot. Meaning thereby that an order was passed by the S.S.P. to enter the name of the petitioner in Surveillance Register, Part-II. The name of the petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 616 of the Surveillance Register. Copies of FIR Nos. 298/78, P.S. Sadar Muktsar and 77/78 P.S. City Malout were appended as Annexures R1 and R2 and their translations are annexures RI/T and R2/T respectively. In addition to it the petitioner was also arrested in the following cases: