Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and impugned order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, directing reopening the history sheet of the petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially, a history sheet was opened against the petitioner in relation to certain illegal activities, but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was convicted in connection therewith. Since there was no material available with the respondent to continue the said history sheet of the petitioner, the same may be discontinued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the history sheet of the petitioner was re-constituted and maintained in pursuance of the order dated 31.07.1990 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer vide order dated 12.05.2011 ordered closure of the history sheet against the petitioner on the ground that after 1965, no criminal case was registered against the petitioner, and that, the petitioner was not involved in any of the illegal activities. However, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, since son of the petitioner was to contest the Assembly Elections of 2013, therefore, again vide impugned order No.6112-13 dated 30.07.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer ordered reopening of the history sheet against the petitioner in relation to some illegal activities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a categorical submission that the last case, which could be said to be registered against the petitioner in regular criminal proceedings vide FIR No.9/1973 for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, however, the same did not result in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is apparently clear that the said FIR has been lodged with oblique motive.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the Rajasthan Rules, 1965, Rule 4.4 whereof deals with the Surveillance Register No.8 whereby the Historysheet is maintained. The said Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, 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.

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence as suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government mode 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 : -

(4) 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;

(d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without imposition of any conditions.

Note:- This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner, who is presently aged about 80 years and physically is not in a position to move about freely, has submitted repeated representations seeking closure of the history sheet against him, but the respondent did not accede to such request of the petitioner. Thus, continuance of the history sheet against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, apart from being attempt to malign the petitioner.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present misc. petition. However, he has not been able to refute the aforesaid factual submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

10. This Court finds that the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Tejender Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another. (S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1929/2014 decided on 19.09.2018), which reads as under:

"1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed under the facts and circumstances of the case, that the present criminal misc. petition of the petitioner may very kindly be allowed and respondent No.2 may very kindly be directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No.8, forthwith. The police may also be directed to remove his photograph from their website immediately. Any other relief which is just and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been a social worker and his work has been appreciated on various occasions, which includes scholarship to girl students, marriage of the poor and orphan girls etc.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 13 cases were lodged against the present petitioner, result whereof shows that the petitioner has never been convicted, except for a fine of Rs. 200/- and was being given the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act twice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments rendered at Principal Seat as well as Jaipur Bench of this Honble Court:

Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.,2015 1 CriC(Raj) 316.

Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan,2006 2 CriC(Raj) 1182].

Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan,2012 3 CrLR 1325.

Swaroop Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10993/2013].

Ramgopal Jain Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others., (2013) 3 WLC(Raj) 466.

Suraj Prakash Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.,2015 4 CrLR 1938

Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others., (2016) 2 CriCC 424.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor agrees that the chart issued by SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar reflects the correct position of all the cases lodged against the present petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has shown the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, Rule 4.4 whereof deals with the Surveillance Register No.8 whereby the Historysheet is maintained. The said Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, 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.

(b) All released convicts in regard to whom. an order under section 565, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made.

(c) All convicts the execution of whose sentence as suspended in the whole, or any part of whose punishment has been remitted conditionally under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.

(d) All persons restricted under Rules of Government mode 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 : -

(4) 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;

(d) convicts released before the expiration of their sentences under the Prisons Act and Remission Rules without imposition of any conditions.

Note:- This rule must be strictly construed, and entries must be confined to the names of persons falling in the four classes named therein."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder arguments thus, submits that a bare perusal of the aforequoted Rule, makes it amply clear that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of necessary requirements of Rule 4.4 in the Surveillance Register.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar and Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.

9. This Court has also carefully read the aforequoted Rule 4.4 of the Rules of 1965, and finds that in the present facts and circumstances, the said Rule 4.4 is not applicable for maintaining the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. The fact of the petitioner having 13 cases is not denied, however, the petitioner has been acquitted in 10 cases and in one cases, fine of Rs. 200/- has been imposed upon him and in another two cases, the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act has been given to the petitioner.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, with the direction to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register No.8, forthwith. The photograph of the petitioner from the website of the Police Department shall also be removed forthwith.

11. This Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.

12. In light of the aforequoted judgment and the facts noted by this Court, the present misc. petition is allowed in the same terms and directions, and the impugned order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, directing reopening of the history sheet against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.