V.K. Bali, J.
1. The prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to issue direction to respondents to quash history sheet of the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case reveal that petitioner is an ex-service man having served the Army for 11 years and at the time of filing the present petition he was employed as Watchman with the Garrison Engineer (North), Ambala Cantt. It is pleaded that one Pannu Ram Verma, ASI Police was posted as incharge of Police Post Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantt. and he asked the petitioner to arrange for five bottles of rum. Since petitioner has shown his inability, he was abused by the ASI aforesaid which led to altercation. ASI Pannu Ram Verma was transferred to Police Station, Sadar Ambala City situated in Civil Court premises and it is pleaded that the village of petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Ambala City. On account of earlier incident, it is pleaded, AS! started harassing him. On April 28, 1983 petition found his sons, Gurmit Singh, aged 10 years, missing from the house and his wife informed him that Pannu Ram Verma ASI alongwith three constables had visited their house and after giving beating to her, had taken his minor son and detained him illegally. A.S.I., it is pleaded, had also taken five tolas of gold and Rs. 2100/- in cash. Petitioner, of this incident, filed a case against the said ASI and three constables Under Sections 365,343 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. With a view to concoct false case against petitioner, the police got certain false reports regarding taking of money by him for recruitment of persons in the Army even though he was not concerned with the recruiting agency and was only a Watchmen in the office of G.E. (North). On coming to know of the registration of the case, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was allowed. Thereafter, it is pleaded, another case was registered against him on a complaint filed by one Rajinder Verma, Gold Smith of Ambala City on the allegations that petitioner had stolen electric motor from the land which stood mortgaged with him and of which land petitioner was the owner. Constrained, petition had once again prayed for anticipatory bail which was also allowed. When the police and, in particular, Pannu Ram Verma, ASI, were unable to achieve their evil designs, they started concocting various criminal reports against the petitioner. It is pleaded that in all the cases, which were in all five and which were planted against him after the incident that had occured as mentioned above, petitioner has already been acquitted. However, on account of registration of various cases i.e. five in all, respondents opened history sheet of petitioner and accordingly named him therein. It is this history sheet which sought to be quashed in this writ petition as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.
3. As per provisions contained in Rule 23.9 of Chapter 23 of Prevention of Offence in Punjab Police Rules a history sheet can be opened in form 23.9, if one does not already exist, for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts. It can also be opened by or under the written orders of a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for any person not entered in the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons. Rule 23.9 aforesaid reads thus :-
“(1) A history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in Form 23.9 for every persons whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts;
(2) A History sheet may be opened by, or under the written order of, a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for nay person not entered in the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons;
(3) The Government Railway Police shall maintain history sheets of criminals known or suspected to operate on the railway in accordance with Police Rule 23.8. They will open history sheets themselves for criminals living in railways premises, who have been absent from their original homes so long that the railway premises may be regarded as their permanent residence. They may also open history sheets of wandering strangers reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime on the railway. Whose original homes cannot be traced.”
Rule 23.4. is with regard to surveillance register No. X. The same reads thus:-
“23.4: Surveillance register No. X:-(1) in every police station, other than those of the railway police station, a surveillance register shall be maintained in Form 23.4(1).
(2) In para I of such register it shall be entered the names of persons commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned, who belong to one or more of the following classes:-
a) All persons who have been proclaimed Under Section 87 Code of Criminal Procedure;
b) All released convicts in regard to whom an order Under Section 565 Cr. P.C. has been passed;
c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence is suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally Under Section 401 Cr.P.C. d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government made Under Section 16 of Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918;
(3) In Part II of such register may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent:-
(a) Persons who have been convicted twice or more than twice of offences mentioned in Rule 27.29;
(b) Persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not;
(c) Persons under security Under Sections 109 and 110 Cr.P.C;
(d) Convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the provisions of and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions.”
4. On the fact that have been rendered, it is pleaded and so argued by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Rules reproduced above, clearly demonstrate that the case of petitioner does not fall under any of the categories and opening of history sheet of petitioner is clear contravention of the Police Rules. Mr. Sharma relied upon Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) RCR 673 for his aforesaid contention.
5. In the reply that has been filed by the respondents, all that has been stated is that under the Police Rules they are well within their rights to open history sheet of petitioner.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court is of the considered, view that the history sheet opened by respondents with regard to petitioner deserves to be quashed. The facts, as have been detailed above, have not been disputed. It is admitted position that petitioner was earlier in Army and his record throughout his tenure of more than 10 years’ service was good. Thereafter he was employed in Garrison Engineer’s Office. His record in the said department is also absolutely clean. Even if the contention of Mr. Sharma that petitioner was involved at the instance of Pannu Ram Verma, ASI, with whom he has altercation, is not believed, yet the mere fact that the petitioner was involved in five criminal cases in which he has since admittedly been acquitted, would not authorise the respondents to open his history sheet. The case of petitioner does not fall in any of the categories enumerated under Rule 23.9, reproduced above.
7. Habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons cannot be a person who has simply been accused and against whom a case or cases are pending. To be habitually addicted to crime, One has necessary to have conviction recorded against his name. It is settled law that till such time a person is proved to be guilty and convicted, he is presumed to be innocent. The accusation or accusations against the petitioner, thus, could not bring him under the relevant rule. Opening of history sheet of a person and recording his name therein is a serious matter. Once a person’s name is so recorded, the public comes to know him as a person of bad character. This, thus, cannot be done simply when a person has been accused of a crime. It is for that precise reason that the rule requires that a person should be habitually addicted to crime and not that he has been simply accused of crime.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The history sheet of petitioner drawn by respondents is ordered to be quashed. There shall however, be no order as to costs.