JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---The petitioner is resident of Dombivali, a town in Thane district. The present petition is filed on December 7, 1989 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the surveillance register of Dombivali Police Station and also from the history sheet maintained by the said police station. The name of the petitioner was brought on the surveillance register on February 3, 1987, and as a consequence history sheet was prepared in respect of the activities of the petitioner. Before examining the complaint of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out the criminal cases which were filed against the petitioner between the years 1982 and 1986. On January 17, 1982 the petitioner was charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution ended in acquittal on June 29, 1985. On May 3, 1984 the petitioner was charged for having committed an offence of criminal trespass punishable under sections 451 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. This case ended in acquittal on March 20, 1989. The petitioner was prosecuted for possessing aims without proper licence on July 6, 1986 but this prosecution also ended in acquittal on March 30, 1989. On June 7,1986 the petitioner was arrested for having committed an offence under section 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act but the prosecution ended in acquittal on March 18, 1989. One more prosecution for having committed an offence under section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner but the Magistrate acquitted the petitioner on March 28, 1989. 2. The Office of the Inspector General of Police in pursuance of the orders issued by the State Government has prepared a compilation known as the Bombay Police Manual 1959. Chapter III of Volume III of this Manual deals with the subject of preventive action. Paragraph 63 of this Chapter prescribes maintenance of registers including history sheets and surveillance register. These registers are maintained in order to deal effectively with crime and to have a continuous record of the criminal history of individuals and localities. Each police station is required to maintain the record including history sheet and surveillance register. Paragraph 63 of this Chapter prescribes maintenance of registers including history sheets and surveillance register. These registers are maintained in order to deal effectively with crime and to have a continuous record of the criminal history of individuals and localities. Each police station is required to maintain the record including history sheet and surveillance register. Paragraph 68 of Chapter III deals with the maintenance of surveillance register and provides that such a register shall be kept in the office of the District Superintendent of Police and shall form index to the history sheets. Paragraph 68(2) reads as under:---- "(2) The means of all persons required to notify residence under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code and Bombay Habitual Offender's Act, 1959 of convicts released conditionally or granted furlough under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, and of other persons whose surveillance the District Superintendent of Police considers necessary for the prevention or detection of crime will be placed on the Surveillance Register. It is not intended otherwise to fetter the discretion of Superintendents as to the types of persons who should find their way on to the Surveillance Register. It is, however, suggested, purely as guide, that persons convicted of house-breaking, robbery or dacoity committed in a professional manner, well-known receivers whether convicted or not, approves in property cases, coiners, note counterfeiters, professional railway thieves, and persons bound over under section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, are persons surveillance over whom would be profitable." Paragraph 9 of Rule 68 provides that no hard and fact rule can be laid down as regards the period for which names should be kept on the Surveillance Register. In case of convicted persons the guidelines provides that name should be retained on register after expiry of imprisonment for a period which should not ordinarily be more than two years. It further provides that if for a period of five years the person does not come to adverse notice, his name should be struck off and no routine enquiry about him should be made. Paragraph 67 deals with maintenance of history sheets and provides that history sheet will be opened for all persons whose names are on the Surveillance Register. 3. Mr. Paragraph 67 deals with maintenance of history sheets and provides that history sheet will be opened for all persons whose names are on the Surveillance Register. 3. Mr. Chitnis, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the name of the petitioner was brought on the surveillance register and history sheet is prepared arbitrarily and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. The learned Counsel urged that the action of the respondents is mala fide and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Chitnis submits that by bringing the name of the petitioner on the surveillance register and maintaining history sheet would result into bringing discredit to the petitioner and the petitioner would suffer socially. The learned Counsel urged that the petitioner was never convicted though tried in at least five cases and inspite of the order of acquittal the action of the respondents will bring the petitioner to public ridicule and affect his personal liberty. The learned Counsel in support of the submission places strong reliance upon the decision of learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1989 Cri.L.J. 519 (N. Venkatachalapathy v. The State of Karnataka and others)1. We are unable to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel. In the first instance, it must be clearly understood that the provisions of paragraph 67 and 68 in Chapter III of the Bombay Police Manual has no statutory sanction but are merely guidelines issued to the Police Officers for efficient and proper administration and maintenance of public order. The action contemplated by Chapter III is for the purpose of maintaining continuous record of the criminal history of individuals and localities and in order to deal effectively with crimes. It is obvious that the function of police authorities is not restricted merely to take action after commission of crime but it is incumbent upon the police authorities to take steps and precautions for preventing commission of crimes. It is not possible for the police authorities to succeed in the duty of preventing crime unless surveillance is kept on persons who are likely to commit offences or who are likely to disturb public peace. It is possible that some persons are likely to commit offence while others would disturb public peace and tranquility only on certain occasions like the visit of VIP of the religion functions. It is possible that some persons are likely to commit offence while others would disturb public peace and tranquility only on certain occasions like the visit of VIP of the religion functions. The surveillance is kept not only in respect of persons who are likely to commit offence but who are also likely to disturb public peace. The submission of Mr. Chitnis that paragraph 67(2) enable the District Superintendent of Police to bring the name of only those persons who are convicted on surveillance register is not correct. What is prescribed is that name of all persons who are convicted should be brought on the surveillance register but that would not fetter the discretion of the Superintendent to bring on register other type of persons. The paragraph then given illustrative cases where the Superintendent should bring the names of the persons on register. One of such case is a receiver of stole property, and the name of such person should be brought on surveillance register whether such person is convicted or not. It must be remembered that the paragraph does not give an exhaustive list of persons who are to be brought on record but it is only illustrative and discretion of the Superintendent of Police is not fettered. In the state of things, it is necessary to leave certain discretion in the senior officer like District Superintendent of Police in respect of keeping surveillance on persons of doubtful character. It is not possible to accept the submission that the surveillance is permissible only in respect of persons who are convicted by the Courts. A person may be acquitted for numerous reasons but that would not disentitle the Superintendent from bringing his name on record for the purposes of surveillance. 4. Mr. Chitnis submitted that it is incumbent upon the District Superintendent of Police to give a prior show cause notice to the person whose name is to be brought on the surveillance register. The learned Counsel urged that once the name of the person is brought on the register, there is a stigma and, therefore, it is necessary that the Superintendent should strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. It is impossible to accede to the submission. The mere fact that the name of the person is brought on record for the purpose of surveillance does not result into civil consequences. Mr. It is impossible to accede to the submission. The mere fact that the name of the person is brought on record for the purpose of surveillance does not result into civil consequences. Mr. Chitnis very fairly stated that merely because the name of the person is brought on the register, there is no adverse impact on such person. The doctrine of natural justice cannot be stretched to an adsurdity to suggest that even in case where there is no violation of any right of an individual or when there are no civil consequences still the Superintendent of Police should give a prior notice before bringing on record the name of a person for the purposes of surveillance. If such a view is accepted as done by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, then, it would lead to absurd results and it would be impossible for the police machinery to function and prevent commission of crimes. Mr. Chitnis also urged, again with reference to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, that by bringing on surveillance register the name of a person the fundamental rights of such a person under Article 21 of the Constitutional are violated. We are unable to see any merit in this submission. We repeatedly inquired from the Counsel as to what is the violation of right and how the entry of the name on record would take away any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the Counsel could not give any effective answer. Every right of the person whose name is brought on the surveillance register is kept in-fact and the idea of bringing the name of such person on the register is only because there is apprehension in the mind of the Superintendent of Police that such person is likely to involve in commission of offence and, therefore, it is necessary to keep an eye on him with a view to prevent commission of offence. We fail to see how such a person can complain if an eye is kept on his activities. Mr. Chitnis submitted that it is possible that such a person would be called at the police station. It is difficult to see any force in this submission because it is open to police authorities to call any citizen at the police station for good reason. Mr. Chitnis submitted that it is possible that such a person would be called at the police station. It is difficult to see any force in this submission because it is open to police authorities to call any citizen at the police station for good reason. In our judgment, the contention that fundamental rights under Article 21 are violated is nothing but a wild cry. 5. Mr. Chitnis also submitted, again with reference to the Karnataka High Court judgment, that arbitrary powers are conferred under paragraphs 67 and 68 of the Police Manual and there is no guidelines for exercise of those powers and it is likely that the powers will be abused. We do not find any substance in the submission. In the first instance, what paragraphs 67 and 68 provides is merely guidelines and does not confer any power independent of the powers available to police authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, the right to bring on surveillance register the name of persons is not left to every police constable or a Sub-Inspector but is available only to the top-most officer in the district i.e. District Superintendent of Police. It is impossible to accede to the submission that the person of such a high status would misuse or abuse the discretion conferred on him for the purposes of maintenance of public peace in the district. Secondly, the submission that the discretion is unregulated is also not correct. The District Superintendent of Police is required to periodically go through the register and if necessary, to remove the name of a person. In case of persons who are convicted, the names are to be removed after a certain duration, provided any adverse activities on the part of such persons do not come to the notice of the police authorities. In our judgement, it is incorrect to suggest that the guidelines furnished by paragraphs 67 and 68 are unreasonable or are not well regulated. 6. In the present case at least five prosecutions were lodged against the petitioner between the years 1982 and 1986. The name of the petitioner was brought on the surveillance register in February, 1985. In our judgement, it is incorrect to suggest that the guidelines furnished by paragraphs 67 and 68 are unreasonable or are not well regulated. 6. In the present case at least five prosecutions were lodged against the petitioner between the years 1982 and 1986. The name of the petitioner was brought on the surveillance register in February, 1985. The mere fact that the petitioner was acquitted in all the five prosecutions in the year 1989 can by no stretch of imagination lead to the conclusion that the action of the District Superintendent of Police in year 1986 was mala fide or arbitrary. On the other hand, in our judgment, the action was entirely justified. It was necessary for the police authorities to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioner when the petitioner was prosecuted in five criminal cases in short duration of four years. It is also required to be stated that the surveillance register or history sheets are not public documents and are not available for inspection and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the disclosure of the same would bring the petitioners to public ridicule is without any foundation. We have carefully gone through the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court and on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Chitnis. We appreciate the concern for privacy of an individual and the liberty of the individual, but we cannot overlook the larger interest of the society which demands that the police authorities should keep surveillance on persons of doubtful character and who, according to the police authorities, are likely to involve in commission of offences. In our judgment, the concept of privacy and liberty should not be stretched to such an extent as to make it impossible for the police authorities to prevent crimes and create more problems for the common man in the society. With respect we are unable to share the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. In our judgment the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and the petition must fail. 7. Accordingly rule is discharged. Rule discharged. -----