JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - The Petitioner is one Mohammad Yasin who is employed as a peon under Mahmudabad Estate. He is in the service of the Estate from his boyhood and gets a salary of Rs. 20/- per month besides another Rs. 30/- as Pahradar of one of the Mahajans at Mahmudabad. He also owns a bullock-cart and a couple of bullocks from which, too, he makes some earning. 2. A cattle market is held at Ghaznipur in Mahmudabad Estate under the direction and control of that Estate. Mohammad Yasin has in the course of his duty as peon of Mahmudabad Estate to attend this market. In March 1957 an anonymous complaint reached the Superintendent of Police Sitapur within whose territory this Bazar is held to the effect that Mohammad Yasin, who looks after the arrangements in this market, causes pick-pocketing and commission taking (girahkati aur bazar keandar dalali karate hain) to be done. An instance as regards stealing of two bullockt belonging to one brahma was also cited in which it was alleged that Baij Nath constable hushed up the matter after accepting illegal gratification from Fakire. The bullocks claimed by Brahma were stated to have been stolen by his own brother-in law who was apprehended while he was trying to dispose them of to a purchaser in the market. This S.P. made the following order on this anonymous petition: I smell truth in this anonymous complaint. Please conduct an enquiry. 3. One Ram Murti Singh, Assistant Complaints Officer then held an enquiry in pursuance of the above order. His report is Annexure 2. 4. It appeared from it that Sri Ram Murti Singh interrogated several persons in the course of the enquiry including the Petitioner. A summary of their statements was included by him in his report also. 5. It was clear from this report that the main incident, namely, that two bullocks were sought to be sold by Fakire to a purchaser in the Bazar and that Brahma arrived at the spot while the transaction was still proceeding, was found to be correct by the enquiring officer. The Petitioner too admitted that he was present in the Bazar when Baij Nath constable apprehended the two constables and took them to the police station. The Petitioner too admitted that he was present in the Bazar when Baij Nath constable apprehended the two constables and took them to the police station. But he denies that he accompanied Baij Nath to the police station where according to Sri Ram Murti Singh they were released by Baij Nath after accepting money from Brahma who was their owner. The report also stated that Fakire was own brother-in-law of Brahma hence the latter was anxious to protect him from prosecution etc. and there was little chance of evidence being forthcoming. The report which he, therefore ultimately submitted was that a case against Baij Nath was difficult to be proved but at the same time he recommended that a history sheet might be opened in the case of the Petitioner. As a result the history sheet, the subject matter of this petition was directed to be opened. 6. Para. 228 of the Police Regulations under which history sheets are started makes provision firstly for history sheets usually called history sheets of class A pertaining to dacoits, burglars, cattle-thefts and railway goods wagon thieves and of class B pertaining to confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-thefts and thefts from railway goods wagon. Glass B history sheets, as the regulation lays down, can be opened in the case of professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files are maintained by the criminal investigation department, poisoners, cattle poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick-pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire cutlers and habitual distillers. The history sheet which has been started in the instant case is of this class. 7. The accusations levelled against the Petitioner in the anonymous complaint have already been noticed Barfly they were that he encouraged pick-pocketing and commission taking in the market. There was no charge that he himself was a pickpocket or belonged to any of the categories of criminals referred to in Regulation 228 aforesaid. It simply accused him of helping offenders in pick-pocketing i.e. in carrying out their nefarious activities. What was said against him was that he encouraged pick pocketing and not that he himself indulged in it or that he was an expert pickpocket. The other allegation was that he took commission in the bazar. It simply accused him of helping offenders in pick-pocketing i.e. in carrying out their nefarious activities. What was said against him was that he encouraged pick pocketing and not that he himself indulged in it or that he was an expert pickpocket. The other allegation was that he took commission in the bazar. There can scarcely be any objection to the taking of commission in trade transactions if that alone was the intention in accusing him of such a conduct. No offence is there by committed for the prevention of which action or precaution might be necessary. No question, therefore, of starting a history sheet by way of preventive action could at all arise on that account and if the implication in the said accusation was that he helped persons in accepting illegal gratification again it is not possible to bring him within the description of persons illustrated in Regulation 228 and in whose case history sheets can be started. But even if it be considered for a moment that the Petitioner became liable for the commission of an offence by acting in the manner attributed to him the ultimate situation will, in my opinion, not improve in view of what appeared from the report itself submitted by Sri Ram Murti Singh, This document does not claim to refer to any instance in which the Petitioner was found or suspected to have participated in the commission of pick-pocketing and bribe extraction. Although Sri Ram Murti Singh examined a number of witnesses in the course of the investigation, it does not appear, from whatever summary of their statements he included in his report that even one witness stated any facts which involved or tended to involve the Petitioner in a case of accepting or taking of bribe or of encouraging pick pocketing. Even in the case of the particular instance complained of in the anonymous petition Sri Ram Murti Singh failed to refer to the particular part placed by the Petitioner, i.e. a part which would induce a reasonable person to suspect, much less held that the Petitioner was actively connected in the release of the two animals or in persuading Baij Nath to do so or even that Baij Nath had been paid at his instance. The utmost that one may urge on its basis is, that the Petitioner was present at the police station where the bullocks had been carried aid ultimately released it is most surprising that Sri Ram Murti Singh should still report that Mohammad Yasin played an important part in the hushing up of the matter. The surprise does not end there because he further reported that there was general complaint against him to t the effect that he was in league with pickpockets etc when non of the witnesses whose summary of statement he recorded appeared to have made such a claim. One is at pains to find how lie reached at this conclusion and why if any general complaint was voiced against him he remained silent about it though it was a very material fact. 8. In the absence of any general complaint, as does not appear to have been urged by any witness, the only instance which was alleged and in which the Petitioner was or could be said to be involved was the sale of two bullocks by Fakire. Whether he was actually involved in it or not will not be necessary to decide for the present purposes as shall be presently pointed out. Regulation 228 makes provision for the starting of history sheets in the case of confirmed and professional criminals only. A history sheet can, therefore, be started only, where there is some ground for thinking that the particular person is a confirmed and a professional criminal. Merely because a person is guilty on a certain occasion of some offence or is suspected to be so guilty will not make him confirmed and professional criminal. It is necessary that he should ordinarily be given to the committing of offences. It will be a abuse of Regulation 228 to start a history sheet against a person who has on some occasion committed an offence but who is not a confirmed and professional criminal. The jurisdiction to scar a history sheet arises from the fact that the particular person is considered or thought to be a confirmed or professional criminal for which there should be some basis or material. If in any particular instance there is complete absence of any such material the action in starting; a history sheet will not only be illegal but in my opinion without jurisdiction too. If in any particular instance there is complete absence of any such material the action in starting; a history sheet will not only be illegal but in my opinion without jurisdiction too. In the instant case there is indeed no material even in the report of Sri Ram Muni Singh which could warrant the conclusion or even the suspicion that the Petitioner was a habitual criminal. His report, therefore that he was so was manifestly wrong and capricious. The action thereon must similarly be held to be arbitrary and capricious. 9. The Petitioner has stated also why the history sheet had been started against him. It is not necessary to record any opinion on this question in view of the fact that upon the report as it is the decision to start history sheet was manifestly wrong and capricious. 10. It was contended that the opening of a history sheet was a purely administrative action and it was not open to this Court to t interfere with it in these proceedings. Ordinarily this Court will not interfere in administrative actions but where the action taken is on the face of it arbitrary or capricious and is without jurisdiction the powers of this Court are not wanting. 11. In the result, therefore, it follows that the history sheet opened against the Petitioner is illegal. This petition is accordingly allowed and the Respondents are directed to cancel the history sheet started against the Petitioner. The Petitioner will get his costs from the Respondents.