RAMGOPAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ramgopal Jain, is aggrieved by the fact that he has been declared as a history-sheeter and his name has been entered into Surveillance Register No.8, maintained by the Police under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the Secretary of Ramrajpura Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. The said Samiti has certain disputes with the Anand Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Thus, several F.I.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner and other office bearers of Ramrajpura Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. So far, ten F.I.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner from 1999 to 2008. However, out of these ten cases, in five cases the petitioner has either been acquitted honourably, or on the basis of compromise entered between the complainant and the petitioner. Presently, five-cases are pending against him. The Police has, however, opened his history-sheet and has declared him to be a history-sheeter. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Police has over stepped its jurisdiction; it has gone beyond the requirement of Rule 4.4 of the Police Rules, 1965 ["the Rules", for short] read with Section 8 of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 ["the Act", for short]. Rule 4.4 of the Rules permit a person's name to be entered in the second part of the Surveillance Register at the discretion of the Superintendent, if the person is an habitual offender, or receiver of stolen property whether the other person has been convicted or not. According to the Act, the word "habitual offender" has been defined as a person who has been sentenced on conviction, on not less than three occasions. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the definition of "habitual offender" given in the Act would necessarily have to be imported into the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been convicted even in a single case. Thus, he would not fall within the definition of the word "habitual offender" as contained in Rule 4.4. of the Rules. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that he is a receiver of stolen property. Hence, he would not fall within Rule 4.4. of the Rules. Therefore, he cannot be declared as a history-sheeter under Rule 4.4 of the Rules. Lastly, such declaration made by the State would adversely affect the reputation, the social standing of the petitioner. Since reputation is part of the word 'life' used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same can be denied only by a procedure established by law. However, presently, the reputation of the person is being tarnished in violation of the procedure established by law. Therefore, by declaring the petitioner as history-sheeter, the respondents have violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Police should be directed to remove his name from the Surveillance Register No.8.