Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 154 (PNJ)

Gurinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2016-01-13

FATEH DEEP SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. Fateh Deep Singh, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Gurinder Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the official respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from Surveillance Register No. X maintained in the Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala under the Punjab Police Rules. 2. The precise grounds of the petitioner are that earlier he was a Black Cat of the Punjab Police for a long period of time and subsequently had given up such activities and in vengance the police is bent upon implicating him in various cases and as on date as many as 23 cases have been registered against the petitioner but till date never been convicted and thus, his name has been wrongly kept in the Surveillance Register No. X under Rule 23.4 of Punjab Police Rules. 3. Upon notice, the State has taken the stand in their reply enumerating the number of cases the petitioner was facing and has termed the conduct of the petitioner prejudicial to the general law and order and that it was on account of his nefarious activities his name has been entered in the relevant register. Heard. 4. Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules provides for maintenance of Surveillance Register No. X and under sub-rule (iii) (b), it is sufficiently made clear that persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offender or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not are to be kept under surveillance. In the light of the contentions of the State and the own stand of the petitioner that he is facing 23 criminal cases and it is sufficiently clear in the provisions and the rules that it is the reasonable belief of the police that a person is habitual offender, his name can be entered. Since as has been contended on behalf of the State, there are specific allegations against the petitioner with details of the cases which are enumerated in the initial reply of the State which the petitioner is facing ranging from theft, robbery, snatching, for causing life threatening injuries, abduction etc. weighs heavily in the mind of the Court that all is not well with the petitioner. The mere fact as has been sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. weighs heavily in the mind of the Court that all is not well with the petitioner. The mere fact as has been sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Lakhanpal, Advocate that the petitioner has till date not convicted are matters which do not have any impetus on this fact in view of the special provisions that it is the reasonable belief that a person is habitual offender which impels the police to enter his name in the relevant record. Thus, no illegality or perversity can be found in the steps initiated by the official respondents and entry of his name in Surveillance Register No. X of Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala is not uncalled for. The present petition being without merits, stands dismissed.