Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 201 (ALL)

BABLU SHAH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-24

ASHOK KUMAR, GOVIND MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. 1. To get history-sheet bearing no. 152-A/2012, police station- Civil Lines, Moradabad closed this petition for writ is preferred. 2. In brief, factual matrix of the case is that Station House Officer, police station-Civil Lines, Moradabad in the year 2011 made a request to the Competent Authority to allow him to keep the petitioner under surveillance by opening his history-sheet of 'A' category. While making such request the Station House Officer stated in the office note that Bablu Shah S/o Mohd. Kurban Shah (petitioner) aged about 23 years, born in a middle class family, having two brothers and two sisters is an illiterate. By profession, he is an electrical mechanic but due to lust for money, he is in a bad company of Manoj Bhatnagar S/o Kamal Swaroop Bhatnagar with whom in the year 2011, he committed certain crimes relating to the offence under Section 392, 411 IPC. The activities of Bablu Shah require surveillance through history-sheet of 'A' category. Necessary approval to do so, was granted by the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad City on 07.02.2012. 3. The submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the history-sheet of the petitioner was opened on basis of certain cases lodged in the year 2011 and in all those cases he has already been acquitted. It is asserted that the petitioner is no more involved in any such criminal activity that may demand surveillance; as such, the history-sheet deserves to be closed. 4. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Government Advocate has made available photo-copies of the relevant record for perusal of the Court. A perusal of the record discloses that the Station House Officer Civil Lines, Moradabad is making recommendations year by year to have surveillance of the petitioner by maintaining the history-sheet. The year wise recommendations made by the Station House Officer read as follows:- 2013 - History-sheeter conceals his presence, young in age, surveillance is necessary. 2014 - History-sheeter conceals his presence, young in age, said to be involved in electric fitting job, surveillance is required. 2015 - History-sheeter conceals his presence does not expose himself, young in age, surveillance is required. 2016 - History-sheeter is presently doing electrical work. Peaceful. Surveillance required. 2017 - History-sheeter presently resides at his home. Engaged in labour work. Though peaceful but needs surveillance. 5. 2015 - History-sheeter conceals his presence does not expose himself, young in age, surveillance is required. 2016 - History-sheeter is presently doing electrical work. Peaceful. Surveillance required. 2017 - History-sheeter presently resides at his home. Engaged in labour work. Though peaceful but needs surveillance. 5. On asking learned Additional Government Advocate quite fairly submits that nothing except the notings cited above, is available to substantiate the continuance of the surveillance. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, while meeting with the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that merely on the count that acquittal has been recorded, it cannot be said that the petitioner is no more involved in criminal activities, hence, looking to the recommendation made by the Station House Officer, there is no need to discontinue the surveillance. 7. Heard learned counsels and consider the rival submissions. 8. Before coming to merits of the instant matter, it would be appropriate to refer the scheme for registration and surveillance of bad characters under Chapter-XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. From Regulations 223-227 relates to maintenance of note book in different parts and as per these provisions the village crime note book is a confidential record, kept at every police station and that contains information about the crime and criminals of each village in the circle. In the cities and towns, a separate note-book of each Mohalla or other division is required to maintained, in the same terms. 9. In Part-I of the note book particulars of the population, outlying hamlets, revenue market days, principal castes and tribes, headman, chief landowners other leading men and watchman of the village, is required to be shown. 10. In Part-II entries is required to be made for all particulars relating to the offences committed within the limits of the village area, which are cognizable and reported to the police. 11. Details pertaining to the offences too, are given in Part-III, particulars of all residence of the village convicted of any offences referred in Regulation 226 are to be entered with remarks pertaining to the nature of the offence with modus-operandi of committing the crime. 12. 11. Details pertaining to the offences too, are given in Part-III, particulars of all residence of the village convicted of any offences referred in Regulation 226 are to be entered with remarks pertaining to the nature of the offence with modus-operandi of committing the crime. 12. The Part - IV of the note book contain entries regarding religious festivals and disputes, disputes over property factions offences affecting the railways, canals or telegraphs, the presence of criminal tribes, the prevalence of organized crime such as cattle-theft, the fact that any member of a gang registered in the gang register and others similar matters which are of importance from a police point of view. 13. Regulation 228 relates to opening of history-sheet and that reads as follows:- "Part V consists of history sheets. These are the personal records of criminals under surveillance. history-sheets should be opened only for persons who are or likely to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals. There will be two classes of history-sheets : (1) Class A history-sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway-goods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof. (2) Class B history-sheets for confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files are maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick-pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire-cutters, habitual illicit distillers and abettors thereof. History-sheets of both classes will be maintained in similar form, but those for class B will be distinguished by a red bar marked at the top of the first page. No history-sheet of class B may be converted into a history-sheet of class A, though should be the subject of a history-sheet of class B be found to be also addicted to dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or theft from railway goods wagons. A class, as well as B class, surveillance may under paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the event of a class A history-sheet man becoming addicted to miscellaneous crime his history-sheet may be converted into a class B history-sheet with the sanction of the Superintendent." 14. A class, as well as B class, surveillance may under paragraph 238 be applied to him. In the event of a class A history-sheet man becoming addicted to miscellaneous crime his history-sheet may be converted into a class B history-sheet with the sanction of the Superintendent." 14. Regulation 229 relates to classification of history-sheet as A & B and that also regulate the length of time for which a suspect should ordinarily remain under surveillance in the absence of complaints and further the kind of surveillance that his activities required. The degree of surveillance is not depending to the classification of history-sheet and the history-sheeter but on the extent to which the history-sheeter is believed to be active at any particular time. 15. As per Clause 231 history-sheet of class A can be closed, if the history-sheeter is believed to have reformed but as per Regulation 232 history-sheet of class B will be continuously open and the subject of this kind of sheets shall remain under surveillance until death except for the special reasons. 16. Regulation 233 and 234 pertains his discontinuation of history-sheet and those provisions reads as follows:- "233. The discontinuance of surveillance of the subject of a history-sheet does not entail closing that history-sheet. A history-sheet which is only a record of information need never be considered closed. In the case of persons whose surveillance is discontinued a note should be made to this effect in the history-sheet, and thereafter no periodical or other entries need be made unless something comes to notice which it is desirable to enter in the sheet. Sheets persons whose surveillance has been discontinued should remain in these village crime-note book but if the number is as much as to make the volume too bulky, they should be kept in a separate volume attached to the note-book. They will only be destroyed on the death of the subject of the sheet, or if, on opinion of the Superintendent their further retention is not likely to be of any value. 234. No history-sheet of class A may be discontinued without the sanction of the Superintendent of Police. If it is denied to discontinue the surveillance of the subject of a history sheet of class B, the sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General or Superintendent. Railway Police, must be obtained. 234. No history-sheet of class A may be discontinued without the sanction of the Superintendent of Police. If it is denied to discontinue the surveillance of the subject of a history sheet of class B, the sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General or Superintendent. Railway Police, must be obtained. Proposals from station officers for the discontinuance of history-sheets and for the 'starring or unstarring' of a class suspects must be made through the circle inspector unless dealt with directly by a gazetted officer in the course of an inspection." 17. The scheme of surveillance discussed above in specific terms indicates the reasons for maintaining a history-sheet. The provision of the surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh Regulations is extraordinary course to have control on crime, criminals and the situation of law and order. The entire scheme gives special powers in the hands of police to keep vigil on the activities of history-sheeters, who may be involved in criminal activities. This vigil and surveillance is not only on accused but also on suspected persons. This vigil and surveillance certainly adversely effect right of a person for his free movement and also have negative impression on the social status of an individual. Such intervention in privacy of a person is permissible only in extraordinary circumstances looking to the eventualities referred in Chapter XX of the Police Regulations. No history-sheet can be permitted to be opened and continued, if the eventualities given in Regulations 228 of Chapter XX are not available. 18. The case of the petitioner, as such, is required to be examined in light of the provisions discussed above. It is also worth-while to state that a history-sheet of Category "A" can be discontinued, if the Authority competent is of the opinion that no further surveillance of the subject is required. To form such opinion the authority is suppose to consider the circumstances given under Regulation 228 and if such circumstance no more exists then the course available is to discontinue the surveillance. As already stated that the petitioner was subjected to surveillance on basis of the recommendation made by the Station House Officer in the year 2011, containing adequate reasons to do so. However, the noting subsequent thereto nowhere disclose any application of mind. The notings for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 without giving any instance or eventuality that demands further surveillance simply recommends for continuance of the history-sheet. However, the noting subsequent thereto nowhere disclose any application of mind. The notings for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 without giving any instance or eventuality that demands further surveillance simply recommends for continuance of the history-sheet. 19. In our considered opinion no intervention with the right of privacy of an Indian citizen can be permitted, so mechanically. If such intervention is required then there must be adequate reasons with appropriate discussion demanding the surveillance by maintaining history-sheet. The case in hand discloses absolute non-application of mind and as such the recommendation made by the Station House Officer for continuance of the surveillance is absolutely ill founded. Since 2011, there is not material against the petitioner to keep him under surveillance. The Station House Officer himself stated that the petitioner is leading his life peacefully by working as an electrical mechanic but at the same time, he recommended for continuance of the surveillance which is not in conformity to the other relevant facts stated. 20. In entirety, we are of considered opinion that there is no need to keep the petitioner under surveillance by maintaining his history-sheet and, as such, the same deserves to be discontinued. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to discontinue all the surveillance of the petitioner as per Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.