SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hedge, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1999. D/d. 13.3.1999.

D.G. and L.G. of Police and others - Appellants

Versus

Prem Sagar and another - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Detention - Compensation - Illegal detention by police for a period of one month - State Government called upon by the High Court to pay compensation for illegal detention - No interference with order.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hedge, JJ. - A writ petition was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court alleging therein that one Bhav Sagar has been illegally detained since 26.9.1992 and his relatives have no information about his whereabouts. Prayer was made for issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling upon the police to produce the said Bhav Sagar. This writ petition was filed on 15.10.1992. After notice begin issued, the police authorities came forward with a stand that the said Bhav Sagar was arrested in a criminal case on 28.10.1992 whereafter he was produced before the Magistrate in accordance with law and denied the fact that he was arrested on 26.9.1992 as alleged in the writ petition. To resolve the controversy and to find out whether, in fact, the said Bhav Sagar was arrested on 26.9.1992 as alleged by the petitioner, the High Court appointed one Mr. Ramakant Reddy as Advocate Commissioner. The said Commissioner could not come to a positive conclusion about the fact whether Bhav Sagar was arrested on 26.9.1992 though certain materials were indicated in the report which may be suggestive of the fact that the allegation of arrest on 26.9.1992 is correct. The Court, therefore, thought it fit to call for a report from the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad after examining the witnesses to be produce by either parties. The said Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Bhav Sagar was arrested by the police on 25.5.1992 and was in police custody till he was taken to Karnool and produced before the Court, of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. But who was the officer who is responsible for such unauthorietrarrest could not be located by the Sessions Judge. On consideration of the aforesaid report together with the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court ultimately came to the conclusion that there has been an illegal and unauthorised detention of the said Bhav Sagar for a period of one month and, therefore, called upon the State Government to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000. It is this direction of the High Court which is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals.

2. Mr. G. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted with vehemence that the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge in his report is solely based on the statement of the alleged detenu without any corroborating material and, therefore, the High Court committed error in accepting the said conclusion and ultimately decided that the State is liable to pay compensation for illegal detention. According to the learned counsel, the conclusion that Bhav Sagar was illegally detained from 26.8.1992 till he was taken to Karnooi is a conclusion based on evidence moved which cannot be sustained.

3. Ms. Amareshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that in the pending proceeding, the High Court haying called upon the learned Sessions Judge to enquire into the matter and in enquiry the Sessions Judge having given a positive finding on the basis of the materials placed before him, the High Court was fully justified in accepting the said conclusion and therefore, the award of compensation has been rightly given and no interference is called for.

4. Having examined rival submissions and also the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any error committed by the High Court in accepting the report of the learned Sessions Judge and in coming to the conclusion that Bhav Sagar was illegally detained for a period of one month and for such illegal detention awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000. There were sufficient materials before the learned Sessions Judge who con-ducted the enquiry and the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the detention was wholly illegal and on such conclusion, compensation having been awarded, we do not find any justification for our interference with the said direction of the High Court. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Appeals Dismissed.