' The petitioner was involved in as many as 6 cases whose particulars are given in para. 3 of the petition as well as in the order dated 14-3-1976 passed by the D. S. P. Okara as contained in the Police file. First Case No, 215 dated 3-6-1963 was registered against him under section 411, P. P. C.
According to the relevant record he was acquitted in the case though reprimanded by the Court concerned. Second Case No, 58 dated 2-4-1966 was registered against him under section 379, P. P.
C. He was found guilty and sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment by the A. D. M., Karachi vide his order dated 26-4-1966. Third Case No, 55/110 was registered against him under section 55/110. He was found guilty and sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment and was also imposed fine of Rs, 1,000 by the A. I). M., Okara vide his order dated 11-1-1967. Fourth Case No, 113 dated 20-4-1968 was registered against him under section 457/380, P. P. C. He was found guilty under section 411, P. P. C and was sentenced to undergo one month's imprisonment by the Resident Magistrate, Okara vide his order dated 14-7-1969. Suspicion was expressed against the petitioner in the remaining two Cases Nos. 267 dated 7-12-1962 and 289 dated 12-5-1973 registered under sections 454/411, P. P. C. And under the Arms Ordinance. According to the police report the petitioner was discharged in both the aforesaid cases.
2. The above facts show that the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced in three cases on 26-4- 1966, 11-1-1967 and 14-7-1969 respectively. Prior to that according to the police file he was placed under surveillance and his history sheet was opened under rule 23.9 of Police Rules, 1934, on account of his involvement in two criminal cases in which he was not found guilty and discharged.
The order in this behalf was passed by the D. S. P. Concerned on 21-10-1963, a report was submitted in this regard by the S. H.
0., Okara on 18-10-1963 and without issuing any notice to the petitioner his history sheet was opened on 21-10-1963. However, later on as mentioned above he was served with a notice in compliance with the order of the D. S. P. Dated 14-3-1976 to show cause as to why his history sheet already opened should not continue as such. It is, however, admitted as mentioned above that no notice whatsoever was issued to him then his history sheet was initially opened on 21-10-1963.
3. According to the relevant rule 23.9 of the Police Rules, 1934 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.
4. In the present case as mentioned above the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced in three criminal cases. The last case in which he was found guilty, was registered on 20-4-1968. According to the police report he was released on 3rd of October, 1969 from Jail and thereafter again he was put under surveillance. The record does not show him to have been involved in any other criminal matter whatsoever thereafter. According to the reports made regularly on different dates he was shown to be busy in his work and having not indulged in any bad activity. Even the reporting Officer stated in his reports that no complaint whatsoever had been heard against him thereafter.
5. The last notice issued to the petitioner on 14-3-1976 was issued after lapse of about 7 years.
During this long period the petitioner is not alleged to have indulged in any bad activity. According to law such noticeA could be issued to him only on the ground of his being reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons. The petitioner had not indulged in any bad activity nor committed any crime whatsoever. It is really strange as to how and under what circumstances he could be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime. If he had been habitually addicted to crime then he would not have given up committing crimes. Habit and addiction is a continuing process. A person who was not found having committed any crime during the last seven years before issue of notice under rule 23.9 of Police Rules, 1934 for continuing his B history-sheet already opened could not be reasonably believe to be habitually addicted to crime. If he had continued his such habit or addiction in the recent past then there might have been an occasion for the police official to reasonably believe about the petitioner to be habitually addicted to crime. In the absence thereof I am of the considered view that the relevant provision as contained in rule 23.9 of the Police Rules cannot be applied. The law does not empower a police official under this provision to continue the history sheet already opened against a person who was not found to have committed any crime in the recent past, as only in that case his habit and addiction to commit crime can be proved and not otherwise. In the present case according to the police reports the petitioner was reported to be busy in his work and had not indulged in any bad activity after 1968 till March, 1976 when notice was issued to him. I am afraid issue of such notice in the given circumstances was misuse of the provision as contained in rule 23.9 of the Police Rules, 1934.
6. Further the initial order passed in 1963 placing the petitioner_ under surveillance being without notice was illegal and void and anyr further notice on the basis thereof cannot be maintained in law.
7. As a result of the above discussion the impugned order placing the petitioner under surveillance or continuing his surveillance being without jurisdiction and against law is hereby set aside. The writ petition is accepted without any order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.