Judgment 1. The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rampur, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction to the respondents to remove his name from the Surveillance Register No. 10 maintained under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules. 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the history sheet of the petitioner opened in pursuance of entry in the above-said register under Rule 23.9 of the Rules. 2. It has been alleged in the petition that after his retirement from the Punjab Armed Police on 9-5-1966, he started doing agriculture work in the village. It has also been alleged that he remained Member Panchayat for nine years and now he is the Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat. It has been further alleged that he has also been the Member of District Congress Committee. The petitioner further alleged that the police of Police Station, Qadian has illegally entered his name in the Surveillance Register No. 10 at serial No. 15 without any justification and reason and in gross violation of Rule 23.4 of the Rules, at the behest of the Congress M.L.A. Shri Amarjit Singh Bajwa. The petitioner also submitted that history sheet with regard to his name was also illegally opened by the police. It has been further alleged in the petition that the petitioner was neither convicted in any case nor he is a habitual offender nor receiver of stolen property. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, reply of D.S.P., Qadian, Police Station Batala has been filed. It has been admitted in the reply that the petitioner is working as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rampur for the last 41/2 years. Further, it has been admitted that the name of the petitioner was entered in the Surveillance Register and history-sheet was opened against the petitioner in Police Station Qadian as per the written request made by Inspector Chhaju Ram, the then SHO Police Station Qadian, as he found that the petitioner was having links with bad elements of the village. It has been further averred that the petitioner is involved in a case under Sections 452/326/323/148 and 149, IPC registered at Police Station, Qadian. It has been further averred that the petitioner is involved in a case under Sections 452/326/323/148 and 149, IPC registered at Police Station, Qadian. It has been further averred that Inspector Chhaju Ram has opened the history-sheet of the petitioner as he believed that the petitioner was habitually addicted to crime or to be an aide or abettor of such persons. It has also been mentioned that a resolution has been passed by the respectables of the village. In this regard a copy of the resolution signed by 18 persons of the village has been annexed to the effect that the petitioner is disturbing the peace of the village by making quarrel with bad elements. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner was entered into the Surveillance Register and history-sheet of the petitioner was opened without any justification and reason. While referring to Rule 23.4(3) of the Rules, she submitted that the name of a person can be entered in the Surveillance Register at the discretion of the Superintendent in case a) he has been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in Rule 27.29; b) where the 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 or 110, Code of Criminal Procedure; d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the aforesaid clauses is applicable to the petitioner. She further submitted that history-sheet can only be opened under Rule 23.9 of the Rules if the name of a person has been entered in the Surveillance Register. If the name of such person has not been mentioned in the Surveillance Register, then it can be opened only with a written order of a police officer not below the rank of inspector, who is reasonably believed that the person is habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abet tor of such persons. If the name of such person has not been mentioned in the Surveillance Register, then it can be opened only with a written order of a police officer not below the rank of inspector, who is reasonably believed that the person is habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abet tor of such persons. Learned counsel sub mitted that there was no material before Inspector Chhaju Ram loi opening the history-sheet of the petitioner It is lor the police to justify their action and to show that the conditions precedent for opening the history-sheet and entering name in the Surveillance Register have been satisfied She further submitted that reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under the rules. Belief must be reasonable and based on reasonable grounds. However, mere belief is not sufficient. In support of her contention. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Parvinder Singh Dakha V/s. State of Punjab. (1988) 1 Rec Cri R 274; Kashmira Singh V/s. The Senior Superintendent of Police, (1988) 1 Ree Cri R 676; Gurjant Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) RCR (Criminal) 682 (sic) and Amrik Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police, (1987) 2 Rec Cri R 664 (Delhi). 6. Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to the grounds mentioned in the reply submitted that the name of the petitioner was rightly entered in the Surveillance Register and history sheet was opened under Rule 23.9 of the Rules on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the Inspector Chhaju Ram that the petitioner was reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Rule 23.4 of the Rules which pertains to entering of the name of a person in the Surveillance Register and Rule 23.9 which pertains to the opening of the history-sheet of a person are reproduced below : "23.4 Surveillance Register No. X- (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in form 23.4(1). (2) In Part 1 of such register 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, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made. (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, Criminal Procedure Code. (d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government made under Section 16 of the 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, for 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 or 110, Code of Criminal Procedure; (d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions. Note. This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein. 23.9 History-sheets when opened. (1) A history-sheet, if one does not already exist shall be opened in Form 23.9 for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts. (2) A history-sheet may 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. (3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the 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 railway premises, who have been absent from their original homes so long that the railway premises may be regarded as their permanent residence. (3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the 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 railway 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 for wandering strangers, reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime on the railway, whose original homes cannot be traced." 9. According to Rule 23.4 of the Rules. there are two parts of Surveillance Register Part-I and Part-II. In Part-I, the name of the person who belongs to one or more of the classes mentioned in Classes (a) to (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 23.4, shall be entered. The case of the petitioner is not covered in any of such classes. In Part-II of the said rule, the name of a person may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent if he falls in any of the classes mentioned in (a) to (d). The case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the classes mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 23.4. Neither the petitioner has been convicted twice or more nor there is any material on the record on the basis of which he may be reasonably believed to be habitual offender or receiver of stolen property. The petitioner never remained in custody under Section 109 nor 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or he is convicted nor released before the expiration of his sentence under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules. Therefore, in my opinion, entering the name of the petitioner in the Survellance Register was wholly unjustified arid without any basis. The entering of the name of a person in the Surveillance Register is a serious matter having the impact on his personal liberty. Before entering the name of a person in the said register, the police has to act within the four corners of the Rules. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner was entered in the Surveillance Register and history-sheet was opened on the written request of Inspector Chhaju Ram as he had found the petitioner having links with bad elements of the village, and on the ground that two cases were registered against him. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner was entered in the Surveillance Register and history-sheet was opened on the written request of Inspector Chhaju Ram as he had found the petitioner having links with bad elements of the village, and on the ground that two cases were registered against him. Further, a resolution was passed by the respectables of the village to the effect that the petitioner was disturbing the peace of the village by making quarrel with bad elements. The history-sheet of the petitioner was opened by Inspector Chhaju Ram as he believed that the petitioner was habitually addicted to crime or to be an aide or abettor of such persons. But the respondents have not placed on record any material to justify their action. Only one case was pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was never convicted in two or more cases. The opinion formed by Inspector Chhaju Ram, in my opinion, is without any basis. A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. In the instant case, there is no such material. The reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or addicted to crime must be based on cogent material. Mere belief of an officer is not sufficient. The belief must be supported by material and reasons. In this case, the alleged material or the reasons disclosed in the written statement, in my opinion, are not sufficient either to enter the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register or to open the history-sheet. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from Basta A of Bad Character Register No. 10, Part II, and history-sheet of the petitioner opened pursuant to the entry made in that register is hereby quashed.