UP Police Regs 245Chapter 20 · Registration and Monitoring of Bad Characters
Section 245 · Paragraph 236. Method of monitoring history sheeters
Text size — level 1 of 4
Without prejudice to the powers of the Superintendent of Police to exercise legal authority or to grant shelter in a city where he finds he can contact a suspect in particular places or under special circumstances, surveillance may, for more practical purposes, be defined as including one or more of the following measures:
(a) Secret blockade of the houses and approaches to the houses of suspects.
(b) Periodic enquiries by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector regarding their reputation, habits, companions, income, expenditure, and occupations.
(c) Reports by constables or watchmen of their movements and absences from home.
(d) Verification of movements and absences by means of check slips.
(e) Collection and recording in a history sheet all information having a bearing on conduct.
Comment
Paragraph 236(b), which provided for a search at a suspect's home, was declared unconstitutional for its adverse impact on fundamental rights, and Khatak Singh v. State declared that the said section would cease to be effective. It also stated that the regulation was not a law but a concession of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it did not arise from any provision of the Police Act. The Court equated this paragraph with Paragraph 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Regulation, which was enacted under Section 46(2)(c) of the said Act and permitted a visit to a person's home to check whether the person was present or had gone to commit a crime. Its intent was to prevent crime, for which the government is authorized to form corporations in accordance with the Act. In Govind v. State, the Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Regulation, which also considered the individual's right to privacy and personal liberty. Article 21 defines personal liberty as broad, encompassing a variety of authorities and encompassing a different scope than the specific right enshrined in Article 19(b)(d) of the Constitution.
In Dhanji Ram v. Superintendent of Police, Delhi, it was also held that a police officer's reasonable belief that a person is guilty of a crime is sufficient to place his name on the history sheet, and the reasons for this belief need not be provided in the order issued.
After determining that a person was a habitual offender, the State opened his history sheet, but upon examining the facts, it was discovered that he had been fined ₹50 for gambling and a quarter bottle of foreign liquor was recovered from him under the Excise Act. It was also found that he had not been arrested under Section 151/110 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting a person on the history sheet lowers his status in society, and therefore, the rules regarding this matter must be followed in their spirit. The facts against him cannot be used to conclude that he was a habitual offender or that he aided or abetted such individuals. Therefore, his history sheet was declared void. Ramesh Kumar v. State (IJ Reports) 3 The decision in Sudesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police is also noteworthy in this context.
(a) Secret blockade of the houses and approaches to the houses of suspects.
(b) Periodic enquiries by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector regarding their reputation, habits, companions, income, expenditure, and occupations.
(c) Reports by constables or watchmen of their movements and absences from home.
(d) Verification of movements and absences by means of check slips.
(e) Collection and recording in a history sheet all information having a bearing on conduct.
Comment
Paragraph 236(b), which provided for a search at a suspect's home, was declared unconstitutional for its adverse impact on fundamental rights, and Khatak Singh v. State declared that the said section would cease to be effective. It also stated that the regulation was not a law but a concession of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it did not arise from any provision of the Police Act. The Court equated this paragraph with Paragraph 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Regulation, which was enacted under Section 46(2)(c) of the said Act and permitted a visit to a person's home to check whether the person was present or had gone to commit a crime. Its intent was to prevent crime, for which the government is authorized to form corporations in accordance with the Act. In Govind v. State, the Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Regulation, which also considered the individual's right to privacy and personal liberty. Article 21 defines personal liberty as broad, encompassing a variety of authorities and encompassing a different scope than the specific right enshrined in Article 19(b)(d) of the Constitution.
In Dhanji Ram v. Superintendent of Police, Delhi, it was also held that a police officer's reasonable belief that a person is guilty of a crime is sufficient to place his name on the history sheet, and the reasons for this belief need not be provided in the order issued.
After determining that a person was a habitual offender, the State opened his history sheet, but upon examining the facts, it was discovered that he had been fined ₹50 for gambling and a quarter bottle of foreign liquor was recovered from him under the Excise Act. It was also found that he had not been arrested under Section 151/110 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting a person on the history sheet lowers his status in society, and therefore, the rules regarding this matter must be followed in their spirit. The facts against him cannot be used to conclude that he was a habitual offender or that he aided or abetted such individuals. Therefore, his history sheet was declared void. Ramesh Kumar v. State (IJ Reports) 3 The decision in Sudesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police is also noteworthy in this context.
Your private note on this section
Only you can see this note.