JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that order dated 15.7.1995, whereby the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and issued directions to Circle Officer, Bhilwara City for opening history sheet against the petitioner, be quashed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was named as accused in four cases and in all those four cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 3. A table of the cases in which the petitioner was involved has been reproduced in para 2 of the petition. 4. It is not denied by the counsel for the State that after the year 1995, no case was registered against the petitioner and he has been acquitted in all the four cases. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Ramgopal Jain v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3916/2012) decided on 4.4.2013 , wherein it was held as under: "A bare perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that there are two categories of persons whose names may be entered in the Surveillance Register: the first category deals with persons who are commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the police, and who are either, proclaimed under Section 87 Code of Criminal Procedure, or released convicts in regard to whom an order under Section 565 Criminal Procedure Code, has been made or all convicts the execution of whose sentence is suspended in the whole, or any part under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code. The second category of persons are those who at the discretion of the Superintendent of Police have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of offences mentioned in Rule 8.22; Rule 8.22 deals with specific offences in Chapter XI, XII, XIII, XVI, XVII and XXI of I.P.C. or under Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. or under Gambling Ordinance, Indian Arms Act or where the previous conviction would lead, but enhanced conviction subsequently. Another category covered under the second category are those persons who are reasonably believed to be "habitual offenders" or receivers of stolen property "whether they have been convicted or not", or persons under security under Section 109 or 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, or convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without imposition of any conditions. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has tried to justify the declaration of the petitioner as a history-sheeter, ostensibly on the ground that he is covered by Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rules i.e. he is believed to be "a habitual offender", or a receiver of stolen property. According to her, it is immaterial whether the petitioner has been convicted or not. On the first blush, the argument seems to be an attractive one. However, on a closer scrutiny, the argument is unsustainable. For, the word "habitual offender" has not been defined in the Rules, but has been defined in the Act. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "habitual offender" as under- The definition is as under- 2(a) 'habitual offender means a person who, during any continuous period of five years, whether before or after the 15.9.1952 or partly before and partly after the said day, has been sentenced on conviction on not less than three occasions since he attained the age of eighteen years to a substantive terms of imprisonment for any one or more of the scheduled offences committed on different occasions and not so connected together as to form parts of the same transaction, such sentence not having been reversed in appeal or revision: Provided that in computing the continuous period of five years referred to above any period spent in jail either under a sentence of imprisonment or under detention shall not be taken into account. Obviously, under the Act, a person can be declared to be "a habitual offender", if he has three convictions recorded against him. However, in the present case, the petitioner does not even have a single conviction recorded against him. Therefore, he does not fall within the definition of the words "habitual offender" under the Act. Thus, he is not "a habitual offender". Although, the words have been used "convicted or not", but considering the fact that the definition of "habitual offender" makes it a pre-requisite that the person has to be convicted at least thrice, obviously, the word 'convicted or not' cannot refer to the words "habitual offender". After all, the fact that he has not been convicted thrice, would ipso facto take him out of the category of being "a habitual offender". Therefore, the words "convicted or not" would necessarily refer to the words 'receiver of stolen property'. After all, the fact that he has not been convicted thrice, would ipso facto take him out of the category of being "a habitual offender". Therefore, the words "convicted or not" would necessarily refer to the words 'receiver of stolen property'. For, there could be a case that a person is involved in receiving stolen property, who is facing number of criminal proceedings, but does not have a conviction recorded against him. Such a person would, obviously, be included in Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rules. Admittedly, in the present case, ten F.l.Rs. were registered against the petitioner for various offences. Out of these ten cases, in five cases, he has been acquitted. Thus presently, he is facing criminal proceedings only in five cases. So far, there is not a single conviction recorded against him. Hence, obviously he cannot be categorized as "a habitual offender". Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence to show that he is a receiver of stolen property. Thus, obviously, he does not fall within Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rules. Reputation is, indeed, part and parcel of word `life' as repeatedly interpreted by the Apex Court. Before the reputation of a person can be stained by the State, the State has to follow the procedure established by law. Since, the Rules and the Act are both partly penal provisions, as they adversely affect the standing of a person, they have to be interpreted strictly and narrowly. Thus, before classifying a person as a history-sheeter under Rule 4.4 of the Rules, the requirement of the said Rule had to be fulfilled. Since, the petitioner does not fall under the ambit of the said Rule, his declaration as a history-sheeter is beyond the procedure established by law. Such an action on the part of the respondents has violated the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed. The Police is directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No. 8, forthwith. The Police is also directed to remove his photograph from their website immediately ." 5. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal Ps. For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed. The Police is directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No. 8, forthwith. The Police is also directed to remove his photograph from their website immediately ." 5. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal Ps. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1325, had held as under: "A chart of the criminal cases of the petitioner has been annexed with the reply and the same reveals that in all the seven cases were registered against the petitioner in between the period from 1991 to 2010. Out of the said seven cases, in one case registered in the year 1996, the petitioner has been convicted whilst he has been acquitted in all other cases including the case registered in the year 2010. It has also been mentioned that two cases - one registered in the year 2001 and another in 2007 were still pending against the petitioner. In view of the above facts, it becomes apparent that as per sub-para 3(a) of Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the essential requirement regarding the existence of two or more convictions for the offences enumerated in Rule 8.22 has not been satisfied so as to sustain the history sheet opened against the petitioner. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner till date has been convicted only in one case and that was also way back in the year 2001. Resultantly, in the opinion of (his Court, the opening of the history sheet against the petitioner cannot be justified." 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, there is no doubt that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by ratio of law laid in Ramgopal Jain's case (supra). 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed in the same terms as in Ramgopal Jain's case (supra)Petition allowed. *******