- (1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 20.9.2010, passed by the Superintendent of Police Khargone under the provisions of M.P. Police Regulations, by which the Station House Officer, Maheshwar has been directed to keep surveillance upon the petitioner by entering his name in the surviellance register. THE petitioner's contention is that he is a peace loving citizen and is running a hotel business. THE petitioner has also stated that on account of influence by certain powerful persons, some case was registered against him and he was fined in an offence under section 294 of the IPC in the year 2004. THE petitioner has also stated that in the year 2007, fine was imposed in a gambling case and the Supreintendent of Police passed the impugned order dated 20.9.2010.
(2.) A reply has been filed by the respondent and the stand of the Stale Government is that the petitioner is a history sheeter and is involved in large number of eases from 1976 onwards. The respondents have also enclosed an order dated 21.8.84, passed by the then Superintendent of Police, under Regulation 855 of the M.P. Police Regulations placing the petitioner under surveillance and their contention is that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the Superintendent of Police on 20.9.2010 and the question for deleting the name of the petitioner from the surveillance register does not arise. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, an order was passed way back in the year 1984 placing the petitioner under surveillance and the petitioner had submitted an application on 20.09.2010 for deleting his name. The same has been turned out by Superintendent of Police, Khargone.
(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the list of cases enclosed along with the writ petition and the same reflects that no case has been registered against the petitioner after the year 2007. The Police Regulations framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 deals with surveillance. Regulations 855. 856 and 857 reads as under:- "855. Surveillance-persons fit for:- Surveillance proper, as distinct from general supervision, should be restricted to those persons, whether previously convicted or not, against whom reasonable material exists to induce the opinion that they show a determination to lead a lite of crime, being confined to such criminal activities as involve public peace and security and are dangerous security risk. Mere convictions in criminal case where nothing gravely imperils safety of society shall not warrant surveillance under this regulation. When the entries in a history sheet or any other information at his disposal, lead the Superintendent of Police to believe that a particular individual is leading a life of crime, as aforesaid, he may order that his name be entered in the Surveillance Register. The Circle Inspector will thereupon open a history sheet, if one is not already in existence and the man will be placed under regular surveillance. 856. Surveillance-how effected. - Surveillance may, for practical purposes, be defined as consisting of the following measures :- (a) Through periodical enquiries by the station officer as to repute habits, association, income, expenses and occupation. (b) Domiciliary visits both by day and night at frequent but irregular intervals. (c) Secret picketing of the house and approaches on any occasion when the surveillance is found absent. (d) The reporting by patels, mukaddams and kotwars of movements and absences from home. (e) The verification of such movements and absences by means of bad character rolls. (f) The collection in a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct. It must be remembered that the surest way of driving a man to a life of crime is to prevent him from earning an honest living. Surveillance should, therefore, never be an impediment to steady employment and should not be made unnecessarily irksome or humiliating. The persons and surveillance should, if possible, be assisted in finding steady employment and the practice of warning persons against employing him must be strongly discouraged. 857. Surveillance-Duration of.- A comparatively short period of surveillance, if effectively maintained, should suffice either to show that the suspicion of criminal livelihood was unfounded, or to furnish evidence justifying a criminal prosecution, or action under the security sections. Superintendents and their assistants should go carefully through the histories of persons under surveillance during their inspections, and remove from the register the names of such as appear to be earning an honest livelihood. Their histories will thereupon be closed and surveillance discontinued. In the case of a person under surveillance who has been lost sight of and is still untraced the name will continue on the register for as long as the Supreintendent considers necessary." The aforesaid statutory provisions of law permits the Superintendent of Police to pass necessary orders in respect of surveillance and Regulation 857 provides that the surveillance should not be for a very long period. The aforesaid statutory provisions also permit for discontinuing the surveillance and in the present case, the record enclosed with the return clearly reflects that no case has been registered against the petitioner since the year 2007.;