H.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is a resident of Rohtak, after having migrated from Pakistan in the year 1947 has challenged, the action of the respondents in opening a history sheet and in entering his name in the Surveilance Register No. X under rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules. The case of the petitioner primarily is that despite the fact that he has been prosecuted in as many as seven cases between 1971 and 1993 he has not been convicted even in one case and as such the action of the respondents in putting him in the register was totally unjustified.
(2.) A reply has been filed in response to the petition and the stand taken is that the Superintendent of Police after going through the character of the petitioner had thought it fit to order that his name be put in the Surveillance Register. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was for the first time convicted under the Opium Act and was thereafter prosecuted for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The fact that the petitioner has been convicted in any case has been denied by him by filing rejoinder and it has been clearly stated that he had been finally acquitted by the Appellate Courts in the two prosecutions mentioned above. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that before the petitioner's name could be entered in the Surveillance Register No. X, the Superintendent of Police was required to apply his mind to the matter and record reasons for making such an order. He has urged that the reply filed had not indicated the reasons that weighed with the Superintendent of Police concerned in making the order. On this assertion I had adjourned the case for the production of the record, which has been made available in Court today.
(3.) IT appears that an order was for the first time recorded on 5th October, 1969 by Shri Kalyan Rudra, S.P. Rohtak that the name of the petitioner be entered in the Surveillance Register. This order reads as under :- "He be kept in bundle A. Name be entered in register X, Part II. Notice under P.R. 23.6. be issued to mohalla respectables." This order was renewed on 31st December 1970 by the same officer with the following observations : "Absent to the charas/opium peddler (sic). Needs stern handling and close watch." The order was further renewed on 26th December 1971 with the following observations : "Is an opium smuggler, has been hauled up in case FIR No. 160/71, under section 9/1/78 Opium Act, P.S. City Rohtak in which he has been convicted, to be kept under close surveillance." On 11th June 1972, the D.S.P. Headquarters made the following order :- "Is a smuggler of opium. Be sent under Section 110 Cr.P.C." These orders were further renewed on 7.1.1973, 5.1.1974 and subsequently right upto 23rd June, 1994. The reading of the entire file clearly indicates that no material has been referred to by the concerned officers while directing that name of the offender be entered in the register. Even otherwise I find that there is apparently no jurisdiction for making the orders aforesaid as the allegation that the petitioner is a opium smuggler itself is baseless because on trial the petitioner had been acquitted in all the cases. It has been held in Baleshwar Parshad v. Commissioner of Police, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 517 and Amrik Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 664 that if the officer concerned does not record any reason based on suitable material for ordering the entry of a person's name in the surveillance register or the opening of the history sheet, the order is liable to be set aside. As already indicated the orders referred to above do not record any reason for making the direction and even the tenuous reason recorded is also without foundation as the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges against him. It is also to be borne in mind that the petitioner has been under close watch since 1969 right upto now without any conviction recorded against him. He is now of 65 years and to allow any further surveillance to continue qua him would be wholly unjustified.;