Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1537 (RAJ)

Ayub @ Ayub Ali v. State of Rajasthan

2017-07-11

SABINA

body2017
ORDER : Sabina, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the opening of the history-sheet against him by police of Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur North. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to open a history-sheet against an individual, the first essential ingredient was that the person should have been convicted twice or more with regard to the offences mentioned in Rule 8.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Five FIRs were registered against the petitioner. In two FIRs, negative final report was presented by the Investigating Agency, whereas in three other cases, petitioner has been acquitted. Hence the name of the petitioner was liable to be deleted from the Surveillance Register No. 8. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is believed to be a habitual offender as five criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. 4. Rule 4.4 of the Rules reads as under:- "4.4. Surveillance Register No. 8 - (1) In every police station, other than those of the railway police, a Surveillance Register shall be maintained in form 4.4(1). (2) In part I 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, 1973. (b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 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, 1973. (d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government made under section 8 of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. (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, of offences mentioned in rule 8.22. (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, 1973. (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, 1973. (d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without the imposition of any conditions." 5. A perusal of the said Rule reveals that in the first part of the Register names of the persons would be entered in the Surveillance Register who are commonly resident within or commonly frequenting the local jurisdiction of the concerned police station and who are either proclaimed offenders under Section 87 Cr.P.C. 1973 or released convicts in regard to whom order has been passed under Section 465 Cr.P.C. 1973 or the convicts whose sentence has been suspended in the whole or in part under Section 401 Cr.P.C. 1973. 6. In part II of the Register, names of the persons may be entered at the discretion of the Superintendent, who have been convicted twice or more than twice of offences mentioned in Rule 8.22 of the Rules or the persons who are 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 Cr.P.C. 1973 or convicts released before expiration of their sentence by allowing them remissions. 7. Section 2(a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 reads as under:- "2(a) "habitual offender" means a person who, during any continuous period of five years, whether before or after the 15th day of September, 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." 8. Thus, as per the above provision, a person can be termed as "habitual offender" if he has been sentenced for conviction for not less than three occasions. Thus, as per the above provision, a person can be termed as "habitual offender" if he has been sentenced for conviction for not less than three occasions. In the present case petitioner was admonished in a case under Section 160 IPC and has been released on probation in a case under Section 341, 323, 34 IPC. Thus, petitioner does not fall within the definition of term "habitual offender." 9. Rule 8.22 of the Rules enumerates the specific offences under Chapters XI XII, XVI, XVII and XVIII which are to be taken in consideration while dealing with Rule 4.4.(3)(a) of the Rules. 10. In the present case, five FIRs were registered against the petitioner and the particulars of the said cases are as under:- S. No. F.I.R. No. Police Station Offences 1 212/2002 Vidhayakpuri 323, 353, 147, 186 I.P.C. 2 211/2002 Vidhayakpuri 147, 342, 323 I.P.C. 3 76/2002 Vidhayakpuri 341, 323, 427 I.P.C. 4 33/1991 Ashok Nagar 47, 148, 307 I.P.C. 5 29/1991 Vidhayakpuri 448, 307, 504 I.P.C. 11. In the first two cases, negative final report was presented by the Investigating Agency, whereas in the remaining three cases, petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court. Thus, at present no criminal case is pending against the petitioner, nor he has earned any conviction so far. Thus, case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Rule 4.4 (3)(a) and 3(b) of the Rules. Since the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Rule 4.4 of the Rules, the addition of his name as a history-sheeter is in violation of his right to lead his life with dignity. Reputation of the petitioner would suffer adversely as his name has been included as a history-sheeter. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to delete the name of the petitioner from Surveillance Register No. 8 and from the website immediately.