Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Vol. III, rr. 23.4(3)(6) & 23.9(2)‑Opening of history‑sheet and enter ing of name in surveillance register‑Words "reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime" in r. 23.9(2) and "reasonably believed to be habitual offender" used in r. 23.4(3)(6)‑Held, of great significance--- Serious and prejudicial actions like opening of history‑sheet and including name of a person in surveillance register‑Cannot be taken solely on basis of initiation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of complaints lodged by private persons or initiated by Government agency‑Such actions justified only on reliable evidence in form of convictions or otherwise to prove that person proceeded against can be said to be a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime.‑[Words and phrases‑History -sheet].

The words 'reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime' in rule 23.9(2) and 'reasonably believed to be habitual offender' used in rule 23.4(3) (b) are of great significance. The word "habitually" requires a continuous and permanence of criminal tendency something that has developed into a propensity that is present from day to day. Its presence is demons trated by the frequency of acts that by repetition have acquired the characteristic of being customary or usual behaviour that is to be regarded as almost inevitable when the appropriate conditions are present. In other words, a habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime repeats on committing of offence/offences whenever appropriate conditions are present. It becomes his habit on account of frequent repetition to commit offence. The words "reasonably believed" used before the expressions, "to be habitual offender" and "to be habitually addicted to crime" in rules 23.4 and 23.9, makes it clear that the belief cannot be based on mere suspicion, but should be based on reasonable material. The word 'reasonably' is not surplusage, but has a definite function, viz. inter alia to limit the discretion of the authority concerned and to make objective satisfaction obligatory, what would otherwise have been subjective satisfaction.

The opening of a history‑sheet or inclusion of the name in the surveillance register carries with it a stigma and the person against whom such an action is taken is not respected by those among whom he moves or lives. Such a serious and prejudicial action cannot be taken solely on the basis of initiation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of criminal complaints lodged by private' persons or initiated by a Government agency, particularly when it i3 not uncommon that the people are motivated to lodge frivolous criminal complaints against their fellow citizens, in order to wreak vengeance instead of seeking justice for a just cause. In order to justify an action under rule 23.9 (2) or under rule 23.4 (3) (b), there should be some reliable evidence in the form of convictions or otherwise to prove that the person proceeded against can be said to be a person reasona blybelieved to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime.

Muhammad Ramzan v. Government of West Pakistan and others P L D 1962 Lah. 957 ; Malik Ghulam Rasul v. Superintendent of Police, Mianwali P L D 1969 Lah. 781 ; Mirajuddin v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore District, Lahore and others P L D 1970 Lah. 569 ; Mazan v. State P L D 1975 Kar. 1035 ; State v. Hassad P L D 1976 Kar. 928 ; Shah Nazar Khan v. Assistant Commissioner & S. D. M., Malir, Karachi and 3 others P L D 1977 Kar. 582 and Sharoo v. State P I, D 1978 Kar. 368 ref.

Ahmed Bux v. Province of West Pakistan P L D 1966 Lah. 598 distingu ished.

Syed Nasiruddin for Petitioner.

Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Asstt. A: G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Date of hearing : 17th October 1978.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.