Under Rule 23.10, history sheets are kept in three separate bundles.
23.9 and companytains the description of the suspect, particulars of his property and mode of earning livelihood, his relations, companynections and associates, the crimes to which he is believed to be addicted, his companyvictions, if any, and his movements, and details of the written and oral suspicions including the names and residences of the companyplainants.
Bundle A companytains the history sheets of persons whose names are entered in police register No.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
The charges of harassment and companylusion with the railway officials are number proved.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the legality of these and other actions of the respondents and asking for the issue of appropriate writs.
17 5 1963.
Rules 23.4 to 23.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 deal with police register No.
The appellant is involved in a number of litigations, civil and criminal, with several railway officials.
The appellant number appeals to this Court by special leave.
The history sheet and the register are kept under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861.
R. N. Agarwala, P. North.
History sheet on Bundle A and enter in Part II of Register No.
The validity of the rules is number challenged before us.
10, they acted mala fide and in companylusion with the railway officials.
The second respondent opened a history sheet for the appellant, and the first respondent directed the entry of his name in Part II of the surveillance register, companymonly known as police register No.
He companyplains that the respondents subjected him to numerous harassments and in opening his history sheet and placing his name in the police register No.
The second respondent is the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Delhi.
10, Rule 23.4 3 b empowers the Superintendent of Police to enter in his discretion in Part II of the register the names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been companyvicted or number.
S. Bachawat, J. The appellant is an employee of the Northern Railway.
The first respondent is the Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi.
