Das, J.I am of opinion that the plaint discloses no cause of action. It is admitted that the defendant caused the name of the plaintiff to be entered in class C of the surveillance register. The plaintiff complained of this entry and his case is that the entry was malicious and illegal and that he has suffered damages in consequence. He has in this action claimed to recover Rs. 2,500 from the defendant.

2. Now, I may Bay at once that, in my opinion, there was no justification at all for the defendant to enter the name of the plaintiff in the surveillance register. The rules empower the Superintendent of Police to enter the name of a person in the surveillance register only when a person has been convicted under some law. It is true that the plaintiff was bound down to keep the peace in a proceeding u/s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code but, in my opinion, an order binding down a person in a proceeding u/s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not an order convicting a person under any law that I know of. At the same time, I must point out that the drafting of the rules leaves much to be desired and may mislead an inexperienced officer. We can only hope that the matter will receive the careful attention of the authorities concerned.

3. But the Question which we have to determine is not whether the action of the defendant is wrongful but whether it is legally wrongful: in order words, has the act of the defendant prejudicially affected the plaintiff in any of his legal rights That is the question which we have to determine. It is impossible to give an adequate definition of the legal fights to which a person is entitled, but, speaking broadly, we may say that these legal rights are, first, the right of personal liberty and security; secondly, the right of reputation and thirdly, the right of property. It is not suggested in this case that there has been an infringement of any right of property. We are, therefore, left to consider whether the act complained of is an invasion of the right of personal liberty and security, or the right of reputation. In my view it has not been shown that the act complained of is an invasion of the plaintiffs right of personal liberty and security. It is not suggested that any restraint has been placed on the plaintiff by reason of the act complained of. If, indeed, his liberty was in any way curtailed or his movements hampered, there would, in my view, have been a cause of action for the plaintiff. But that is not the suggestion here, although it is suggested that the Police have from time to time paid visits to the plaintiff and have annoyed him and harassed him in various ways. If, indeed, there was an unjustifiable intrusion on the part of the Police on plaintiffs property, an action for trespass would lie against them. If the Police have been guilty of any offences under the Penal Code, it was open to the plaintiff to take such action against them as he thought that he was entitled to take but, I do not know of any law which prevents persons from paying visits to another person 30 long as in paying those visits they do not intrude upon the property of another person.

4. Nor do I think that there has been an infringement of the plaintiffs right of reputation. It is true that the defendant has potted the name of the plaintiff in the surveillance register but that is a document which is kept by the department for the use of the department.

5. The learned Vakil for the respondent contended that the authorities have framed these rules u/s 12 of the Police Act. Section 12 of the Police Act provides as follows:

The Inspector-General of Police may, from time to time, subject to the approval of the Local Government, frame such orders and rules as he shall deem expedient relative to the organization, classification, and distribution of the Police force, the places at which the members of the force shall reside, and the particular services to be performed by them; their inspection the description of arms, accouterments and other necessaries to be furnished to them; the collecting and communicating by them of intelligence and information; and all such other orders and rules relative to the Police force as the Inspector General shall, from time to time, deem expedient for preventing abuse or neglect of duty, and for rendering such force efficient in the discharge of its duties.

6. In my view these rules do not relate to the organization, classification find distribution of the Police force, and, therefore, are not contemplated by Section 12 of the Act at all. The rules are, in my opinion, purely departmental rules for the guidance of the department and kept by the department. There is no publication at all, nor is it alleged in the plaint that there was any communication of what is alleged to be defamatory matter to any person other than the plaintiff. It is, in my view, much to be regretted that the defendant acted somewhat hastily in the matter: but the question before us is whether in acting as he did be infringed any of the legal rights of the plaintiff, I am of opinion that he has not. I must, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below, and dismiss the plaintiffs action with costs throughout.

Adami, J.

7. I agree.