PLD 1971 SUPREME COURT 55 (PLP)

Leave in this case was obtained by the Province of West Pakistan and others. It was stated in the petition for special leave that Muhammad Akhtar Mir was reported to be an asso ciate of bad characters indulging in drinking and gambling and other unlawful activities. On the recommendation of the Station House Officer, Naulakha, the history sheet of Muhammad Akhtar Mir was opened sometime in 1948 under the orders of the S. S. P., Lahore and the same was placed in Bundle `A'. It was also alleged that at the time of the opening of the history sheet reliance was placed on four F.

1. R. cases against him out of which one ended in his conviction under section 19 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.

10. But in the other F. I. R. cases, Muhammad Akhtar Mir was acquitted. It was further alleged that after the opening of the history sheet he was involved in about a dozen cases the particulars of which were given in the writ petition itself. In all those cases, Muhammad Akhtar Mir, according to the appellants, was either acquitted or discharged. Relying on the Punjab Police Rules, the appellants, in support of this appeal, took the following stand :- " . . . . . the history sheets are confidential documents and are meant for keeping a watchful eye over suspects and bad characters and collecting information and intelligence with regard to their activities, of course, without putting any rest raints or curb, on their free movements. These documents are in the nature of internal management of Police Force and are solely meant for their own use for effective discharge of their duties in respect of prevention of crime and its detection." It was, accordingly, pleaded on behalf of the appellants that it is not necessary to give a show-cause notice to a person before 0-iiing his history sheet. Leave was, accordingly, granted to consider this point alone. Mr. M. B. Zaman, learned Advocate-General representing the appellants has contended that history sheets being confidential documents intended only for use of the police force for effective discharge of their duties in respect of prevention and detection of crimes, it is not necessary to give a show-cause notice to the person concerned before opening his history sheet in terms of the relevant Punjab Police Rules. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned Advocate-General placed before us all the relevant rules contained in Chapter XXIII of the Punjab Police Rules relating to prevention of offence. Chapter XXIII contains rules 2.3.1 to 23.44. Of them, rules 23.4, 23.5, 23.6, X3.7, X3.8, 23.9, 23.10, 23.11, 23.12 and 23.13 appear to be relevant here. Rule 23.4 provides for the maintenance of a Surveillance Register in the prescribed form in every Police station. It has two parts. Part II of this Register alone is relevant here. It is provided that in this Part there may be entered, at the discretion of the Superintendent, the names of :- (a) persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, of 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 section 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. The foot-note;below it runs thus "This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein." None of the clauses (a), (c) and (d) above was applicable in the case of the respondent Muhammad Akhtar Mir. Even clause (a) was inapplicable inasmuch as he was convicted only once under section 19 of the Arms Act. The only clause applicable in his case, if it was at all applicable, is clause (b). This clause (b) can be invoked if and only if a person is reason ably believed to be a habitual offender or receiver of stolen property, whether he has been convicted or not. There must be sufficient materials to form the foundation of `reasonable belief' as envisaged in clause (b). In the instant case, the respondent, as stated earlier, had only one conviction to his credit with a fine of Rs. 10 only. In all the other cases launched against him by the police, he was admittedly either acquitted or discharged. No other tangible material was brought into the record to show if there were sufficient grounds for reasonably believing that the respondent was a habitual offender or receiver of stolen property in order that his name could be entered in Surveillance Register. Sub-rule (2) of rule 23.5 provides that ordinarily, before the name of any person is entered in Part I1 of the Surveillance Register, a history sheet shall be opened for such person. Rule 23.9, on the other hand, provides that the history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in the prescribed form for every person whose name is entered in the Surveillance Register, except conditionally released convicts. This rule further provides that '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'. The respondent's name having been entered in the Surveillance Register, his history sheet must have beers opened only on the ground stated in clause (b) of Part II of rule 23.4, the other grounds mentioned in that Part not being applicable in his case. This means that his name could have been entered in the Surveillance Register only if he was believed to be a habitual offender or receiver of stolen property and in the history sheet if he was reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of other criminals. The High Court took the view that the single conviction attended with a sentence of Rs. 10 only was not at all sufficient to form the foundation of an entry in the history sheet of the respondent. Leave was not granted to consider if a single entry is sufficient to warrant an entry either in the history sheet or the Surveillance Register. Leave was granted only to consider whether a history sheet of any person can be opened under the Police Rules without giving him a notice to show cause against its opening. We do not, therefore, like to express any opinion whether a single conviction is sufficient to satisfy the require of the rules for entering the name of a person in the history sheet or the Surveillance Register. Coming now to the real point for consideration, we find from the rules that the history sheet opened for a person is not really a guarded secret, of the police force as contended by the learned Advocate-General. After history sheets have been opened, they are! required to be kept in any of the three Bundles 'A', 'B' or 'C' mentioned in rule 23.10. Bundle 'A' contains the history sheets of persons whose names are `entered in Surveillance Register. Ins the case of the respondent, his history sheet was admittedly! placed in Bundle 'A'. This means that his name, beside being entered in the history sheet, was entered also in the Surveillance Register. Rule 23.6 provides that when the name of any person has been entered in the Surveillance Register, a notice in the prescribed form shall be issued to the headman of the village in which the surveille resides so that the headman may ascertain his whereabouts and movements and report the same to the police. Rule 23.11, which is more pertinent to the question under consideration, provides that Gazetted Officers on tour and inspectors shall personally check the entries in history sheets by local inquiry, in the presence of the persons concerned and their zaildars and lambardars, and, so far as possible, at their homes. It thus appears from rule 23.6 that the entry of the name of a person in the Surveillance Register becomes known to the headman of the village as soon as notice is sent to him in the prescribed form. The prescribed form in this respect is Form No. 23.6(1). This form contains the following matters, among others :- "Be informed that the person named on the reverse of this notice, who is a resident of your village, is a bad character and suspicious person . . . . . . . . . . ., and has been entered, by order of the . Superintendent of Police, in the Surveillance Register." On receipt of such notice, the headman at once knows that the person concerned is a man of bad character. Again, the history sheet of a person becomes known to zaildars and lambardars as and when the entries in history sheets are checked by Gazetted Officer and Inspectors by local inquiry. It is thus clear that, even according to the provisions of the rules, the fact of entry of the name of a person in the Surveillance Register and the history sheet is made known to the headman of the village and the zaildars and lambardars in due course. This gives sufficient publicity about the alleged bad character of the person C concerned. These prominent villagers will naturally form an adverse opinion about the character of the person whose history sheet has been opened or whose name has been entered in the Surveillance Register. It is because of the publicity of the history sheet and the Surveillance Register in the above manner that the person concerned is lowered in the estimation of the outsiders and his reputation is affected. Although there does not appear any rule for openly maintaining in the Police Station a list of bad characters and exhibiting their photographs at the Police Station, the uncontroverted allegation in this case is that the name of the respondent was included in a list of bad characters and the same along with his photograph was exhibited at the Police Station. Even if the maintenance of such list and exhibition of photographs be stopped on the ground of their not being permitted by rules, the publicity about the alleged bad character of the persons for whom history shee:s have been opened and whose names are entered in the Surveillance Register must be there under the provisions of rules 23.6 and 23.11. Now, Article 2(2) of the 1962-Constitution expressly forbids the taking of any action detrimental to the life, liberty, body andl reputation of any person except in accordance with law. Thus there is a constitutional guarantee for the protection of a person's reputation. The rule of natural justice is to be presumed to be grafted into every law. According to this rule, no action affecting the reputation of any person can be taken unless he 1B has been given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. This is a well-settled rule and its adherence has been emphasised by this Court in some of its decisions which are so well-known that it is hardly necessary to repeat them. As the respondent had only one conviction to his credit, he deserved all the more opportunity to show cause before entering his name in the history sheet inasmuch as the entry, in the absence of more than one conviction, was very likely to have been made only on the belief that he is habitually addicted to crime. Had he been given such opportunity, he could have explained that no material was there against him justifying the opening of a history sheet. We are, therefore of the view that whenever a history sheet is opened under rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules on the ground that the person concerned is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of~ other criminals, an opportunity of showing cause against the opening of the history sheet must be given to the person. Here E the respondent was not given any such opportunity before the opening of his history sheet. The declaration made by the High Court was, therefore, correct. Hence, we dismiss the appeal, but make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.