' S.H.O., P.S. Bhara Kau, Tehsil Islamabad entered the name of Muhammad Iqbal petitioner in the surveillance register No, 10 on the ground that he was a desperate criminal. Challenging the same he filed the present writ petition. According to him there was no material justifying the opening of his history sheet without notice to him. The petition was admitted to consider the legality of the abovementioned action of the police.
2. It is contended that the petitioner had never been convicted in any case and that no show- cause notice as required by Rule 23.9 (4), Police Rules, 1934 was issued to him. A Kalandara under section 58/110, Cr. P.C. Was filed against him on 6-12-1981. The same was consigned on 4-7-1983 on the ground that the period for which security/bond for good behaviour was required from him had already expired.
3. The question that falls for determination is that whether the police was justified to enter the petitioner's name in the surveillance register without issuance of show-cause notice to him and whether there was any material available against him justifying the action of the police. Admittedly no show-cause notice was served on him as required by the Police Rules. In this context reliance may be placed on Rana Muhammad Afzal v. Inspector-General, Police, Lahore and another (PLD 1974 SC 31) where the orders of opening the history sheet without show-cause notice to the person concerned were held to be illegal. The criminal cases registered against the petitioner which form basis for entering his name in the surveillance register had also ended in his acquittal long before the relevant period.
4. In some of the cases merely a suspicion had been raised against him and he was not formally challaned. Thus there is no material to show that he was a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime. The phrase "habitually addicted to crime" was interpretted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Rana Muhammad Afzal v. I.-G. Police etc. PLD 1974 SC 31. It was held that the person concerned had committed crime on more than one occasion did not apply to cases where that person is acquitted honourably. In the light of the above discussion the material on record is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is habitually addicted to crime. Accordingly, there was no justification for entering his name in the surveillance register No,10. Consequently, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and set aside and the petition is accepted.