Kuna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

.....2.6 casts duty on police to keep record of number of things to prevent crime--to open history sheet is only a preventive measure--nothing on record to show that decision of police is unreasonable--no interference called for;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2. having perused the memo of petition and the counter affidavit, i am satisfied that it is not a case, which calls for judicial intervention. the rajasthan police rules, 1965 under rule 2.6 under chapter 11 cast a duty on the police to keep record of number of things to prevent the crime in the district, which includes not only the persons of bad character but even professional political agitators, notes of fairs, periodical religious processions and many other things......giving instances of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 2. having perused the memo of petition and the counter affidavit, i am satisfied that it is not a case, which calls for judicial intervention. to maintain a 'history sheet', is a part of the criminal administration. the rajasthan police rules, 1965 under rule 2.6 under chapter 11 cast a duty on the police to keep record of number of things to prevent the crime in the district, which includes not only the persons of bad character but even professional political agitators, notes of fairs, periodical religious processions and many other things. thus, to open a 'history sheet' against the individual is only a preventive measure in the criminal administration, which is based purely on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned police authorities. this court will not be sitting in appeal on such decision of the police authorities. it is held by the apex court in number of cases that it would not be proper for the court to interfere in administrative matters unless the decision is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable man could have ever come to it'. reference may be made to a decision of the apex court in (air 1988 sc 1737) (1). nothing is borne out from the record to show that the decision of the police authorities is unreasonable. no interference is called for by this court in exercise of its powers under article 226 of the constitution of india. 3. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.