Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. H.C.P. No.399 of 1994 was taken on file by this Court on 3. 1994. Petitioner Chandra had prayed for issue of a habeas for production Balaraman, her husband, before this Court, so that he could be set at liberty, alleging that the 4th respondent was keeping him in illegal custody and wrongful confinement from the midnight of 12. 1994. She had made two other prayers as well in the said habeas corpus petition, one for directions to respondents to pay a just and equitable compensation to her and the other for ordering of an independent and impartial enquiry by any officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to the incident which, according to her, led to wrongful confinement and illegal custody of her husband Balaraman. 2. After notice, this habeas corpus petition was disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court on 16. 1994 along with H.C.P. No.400 of 1994. The said Division Bench observed that it was common ground that a charge-sheet stood filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, who was seized of the matter and further the detenus has already been released on bail. Under such circumstances this Court stated that the only question submitted for consideration was whether the detenus would be entitled to compensation for the alleged illegal detention in police custody. The said Division Bench went on to add that the factum of alleged illegal detention was denied by the respondents and that matter had yet to be determined. It was the opinion of the said Division Bench that since the controversy related to facts, it could not be properly decided by it, and even otherwise it would not like to undertake such an investigation as the charge-sheet was already pending before the Concerned Magistrate. The further observations of the said Division Bench read that the Code of Criminal Procedure provided several opportunities to the detenu to challenge the charge-sheet and seek discharge in accordance with law. In case the detenus are discharged, by holding that the charges against them were false and frivolous, the question of compensation will arise. In conclusion, the said Division Bench stated that the detenus would have to seek their remedy in a proper court of law and in that view of the matter, they deemed it expedient to hold that no further action was required to be taken in those two H.C.Ps. In conclusion, the said Division Bench stated that the detenus would have to seek their remedy in a proper court of law and in that view of the matter, they deemed it expedient to hold that no further action was required to be taken in those two H.C.Ps. They were accordingly dismissed. 3. Petitioner in H.C.P.No. 399 of 1994 challenged the impugned order passed by the other Division Bench of this Court on 16. 1994 before the Supreme Court of India, which sent back the matter to this Court through its order dated 5. 1995, made in Criminal Appeal No.667 of 1995. The relevant portion of the order the Supreme Court reads as hereunder: “The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for considering on merits the question whether Balaraman, the husband of the appellant, was illegally detained in police custody from February 16, 1994 till March 14, 1994, as claimed by the appellant, which fact is denied by the respondents and if it is found that she said Balaraman had been illegally detained during this period as claimed by the appellant, the High Court may give appropriate relief in the said proceedings. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” Thereafter, in H.C.P. No.399 of 1994, another Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (T. Jayarama Chouta, J.) was a party, on 37. 1995, after extracting the observations of the Supreme Court, stated as hereunder: “To find out whether the detenu Balaraman was in illegal custody or not, evidence is required. In order to record the evidence and to know the exact position, we direct the District and Sessions Judge, V.R.P. District, to hold an enquiry in this matter and examine witnesses, if necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the detenu Balaraman was kept under illegal custody from 12. 1994 to 13. 1994. After conducting the enquiry, the District and Sessions Judge is directed to file a report on or before 29. 1995. The detenu is also entitled to examine any witness on his side in order to establish abovesaid fact.” The H.C.P. was directed to be listed again on 29. 1995. Thereafter, time was extended for submission of report periodically and ultimately the learned Sessions Judge, Villupuram, was directed to complete the enquiry not later than 211. 1995. The detenu is also entitled to examine any witness on his side in order to establish abovesaid fact.” The H.C.P. was directed to be listed again on 29. 1995. Thereafter, time was extended for submission of report periodically and ultimately the learned Sessions Judge, Villupuram, was directed to complete the enquiry not later than 211. 1995 and submit his report on or before 211. 1995. This Court passed another order on 11. 1995 observing that Mr.P. Rathinam, petitioner’s learned counsel stated that no reply affidavit would be preferred to the counter-affidavit already filed by the respondents in H.C.M.P. No.86 of 1995 and hence the main H.C.P. with the Miscellaneous petitions be listed for final disposal on 12. 1995. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was able to get ready with his report only on 211. 1995 two days after expiry of the period fixed by us and despatched the report to the Registry of this Court. On 12. 1995, we directed the Registrar to furnish xerox copies of the report of the Enquiry Officer to both sides and have the matter listed for final disposal on 112. 1995. On 112. 1995, 20.12.1995 and 212. 1995, we heard the matter in part and today, after completion of further hearing we are passing the present order. 4. The H.C.M.P. No.86 of 1995, the prayer is for staying of the proceedings in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, pending disposal of H.C.P. No.399 of 1994 S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 is a prosecution initiated against the husband of the petitioner under Sec.65 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, Alleging that the said prosecution was not true and the case was foisted with an ulterior motive a plea for stay of trial stood made. Interim stay of trial was ordered and the same continues till today. 5. H.C.M.P. No.87 of 1995 was preferred by the petitioner for directions to dispense with the presence of her husband Balaraman in S.T.C. No.628 of 1995, before the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, till disposal of the main habeas corpus petition. The said prayer was also acceded to. 6. Interim stay of trial was ordered and the same continues till today. 5. H.C.M.P. No.87 of 1995 was preferred by the petitioner for directions to dispense with the presence of her husband Balaraman in S.T.C. No.628 of 1995, before the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, till disposal of the main habeas corpus petition. The said prayer was also acceded to. 6. In H.C.M.P. No.96 of 1995, the prayer made by the petitioner is for passing an appropriate order of direction, enabling the Advocates to discharge their duties without any threat from any quarter in relation to the enquiry pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, on remittance of the matter by the Supreme Court. No orders were passed on this petition and it can safely be stated, now, that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and on termination, the report of the Enquiry Officer has also been placed before us. 7. During the pendency of the inquiry, the Public Interest Litigation Cell of this Court, received a letter addressed by Osai Mani and Kumar examined as R.W.3 and P.W.5 by the Enquiry Officer, wherein they have stated that they were compelled to give evidence, supporting the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition and they refused to accede to such a request. They have also stated in that letter that subsequently they learnt about H.C.M.P. No.96 of 1995 having been filed at the instance of Thiru Lawrence, Advocate, Tindivanam, and they were anxious to deny all allegations levelled against them, therein. This communication addressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice was directed to be placed along with H.C.P. No.399 of 1994 for further orders. This direction was issued on 110. 1995. 8. We have perused carefully the report of the Enquiry Officer, who has, in the course of his enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 produced by the petitioner and R.Ws. 1 to 8 out into the witness box by the respondents. The Enquiry Officer, also deemed it fit, to examine Thiru Dakshinamoorthi, Advocate, Villupuram, as a Court witness. On the petitioner’s side, Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked while the respon-dents chose to bring on record Exs.R-1 to R-15. Through C.W.I, Ex.C-1 was marked. The learned Enquiry Officer has observed, that in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion two points thay have to be decided. On the petitioner’s side, Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked while the respon-dents chose to bring on record Exs.R-1 to R-15. Through C.W.I, Ex.C-1 was marked. The learned Enquiry Officer has observed, that in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion two points thay have to be decided. The first point was whether Balaraman (husband of the petitioner) was taken from her house and at that time, whether the 4th respondent, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Gingee, cut the thali of the petitioner and took away the gold thali of two gundus, two nanals and one vazhai seep, all made of gold weighing 3/4 sovereign. The second point posed for consideration was whether R.W.1, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Panruti, foisted a false case against Balaraman (husband of the petitioner) by registering a crime under Secs.41 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the request of the 4th respondent who handed over the said Balaraman, to him on 13. 1994. After an elaborate process of reasoning, the Enquiry Officer has concluded that the petitioner had established that her husband Balaraman was kept under illegal custody by the 4th Respondent from 12. 1994 to 13. 1994. While arriving at such a finding, the Enquiry Officer had taken note of the previous conduct of the 4th respondent as well as the weight of gold jewellery involved in the concerned crimes and the manner in which a crime was registered under Secs.41 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As far as illegal custody is concerned, detailed discussion is available in the report of the Enquiry Officer in paragraphs 39 and 40. Since after hearing learned counsel on either side, we are of the firm opinion, that prima facie the report of the Enquiry Officer will have to be accepted, there will be no need to extract in detail the various factual particulars enumerated and discussed by the Enquiry Officer, which ultimately led to his definite conclusions. Since after hearing learned counsel on either side, we are of the firm opinion, that prima facie the report of the Enquiry Officer will have to be accepted, there will be no need to extract in detail the various factual particulars enumerated and discussed by the Enquiry Officer, which ultimately led to his definite conclusions. We are bound to observe, that it is fairly clear, that parties on either side, has exhibited their over-anxiousness, during the enquiry, to tarnish the image of the other and that is the reason why there was need for the petitioner to prefer H.C.M.P. No.96 of 1995 and for two of the respondents witnesses to invite the attention of this Court to the demands made by certain persons on behalf of the petitioner, compelling them to depose in her favour. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Enquiry Officer, R.Ws.3 and 5 cannot be deemed to be independent and reliable witnesses, at least as far as this enquiry is concerned, since a distinct impression was gained by the Enquiry Officer that they were not speaking the entire truth. This episode, during the course of the enquiry, should have been avoided, but we do not deem it necessary to go into this question any further, now that the enquiry has been completed smoothly and on the basis of the report forwarded, we are passing the present order. In that view, no orders will be necessary in H.C.M.P. No.96 of 1995 and the said petition can be treated as closed. On the identical ground, no further action may have to be initiated by the Public Interest Litigation Cell on the basis of the letter addressed by R.Ws.3 and 5 in the enquiry, to the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court. 9. In Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, In. re., 1994 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1464, the Supreme Court, which had called for a report from the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in relation to death of Sawinder Singh in Police custody, after summing up the report of the Enquiry Officer, stated as hereunder: “It is not disputed that the matter has not yet been finally investigated. The learned Attorney-General assisting us in this case states that he does not accept the findings of the report and he reserves his right to challenge the same at the appropriate stage. The learned Attorney-General assisting us in this case states that he does not accept the findings of the report and he reserves his right to challenge the same at the appropriate stage. We are of the view that the facts and circumstances which have now come to light create a prima facie case for investigation and prosecution. We, therefore, direct that all the persons named in the report of the learned Additional District Judge and others who are accused as a result of the investigation, be prosecuted for the appropriate offences under the law by the Central Bureau of Investigation. We direct the C.B.I., to ensure that an F.I.R. is registered on the facts as emanate from our order and the report of the learned Additional District Judge. A copy of the report along with all the annexures be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation. As an interim measure by way of ex-gratia payment we direct that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs) shall be paid by the Union of India, Directorate of Enforcement to the widow of the deceased Sawinder Singh. In the event of a suit being filed for compensation, appropriate compensation may be determined in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The contentions of the learned Attorney-General which he wishes to place before us at this stage, should be reserved by him for an appropriate stage.” Since we have already expressed out our opinion that we are prima facie inclined to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer, logically a similar order can be passed by us, of course, depending upon the fact situation placed for our scrutiny. Before we decide the quantum of compensation to which Balaraman, petitioner’s husband, will be entitled to it will be better to dispose of the contention urged by Mr.P.Rathinam, petitioner’s learned counsel, that in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the pending prosecution in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, against Balaraman, the husband of the petitioner, must be quashed. Mr.P.Rathinam strenuously contended, that since the witnesses, who are likely to be examined in the pending prosecution, to prove seizure of case property, have been held to be not reliable witnesses by the Enquiry Officer, nothing more would survive in the pending prosecution and hence the trial, if any, to be proceeded with, would only be a mock trial. Mr.P.Rathinam strenuously contended, that since the witnesses, who are likely to be examined in the pending prosecution, to prove seizure of case property, have been held to be not reliable witnesses by the Enquiry Officer, nothing more would survive in the pending prosecution and hence the trial, if any, to be proceeded with, would only be a mock trial. We are unable to agree. The nature of evidence, apart from these two witnesses, that will be let in, by the prosecution in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994, cannot be prejudged. Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, will have to dispose of S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on its inherent merits, on the foundation of evidence that is likely to be let in, in the said, prosecution. The Enquiry Officer was not seized of the prosecution in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994, for the scope of his enquiry was limited and certainly different, than the factual constituent and the credit- worthiness, of the prosecution in the aforestated summary trial case. The findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be imported into S.T.C. No.628 of 1994, unless they are brought on record in the said proceedings in accordance with law. Petitioner’s husband will certainly have enough opportunity to base his defence on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and have such findings brought on record during trial in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994. However, we are of the opinion, that in view of our intended direction to authorities concerned to register a crime against the erring officials and have it investigated, it would further the cause of justice, by continuing stay of trial in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti. Stay ordered in H.C.M.P. No.86 of 1995 shall continue, till a final report is laid against the erring officials, on the basis of directions to investigate, on the foundation of the report of the Enquiry Officer and our own order and thereafter, the prosecution, if any, arising out of the investigation to be conducted against the erring officials and S.T.C. No. 628 of 1994, be taken up together side by side for hearing and disposal. H.C.M.P. No.86 of 1995 is disposed of accordingly. 10. As a corollary, we have to dispense with the appearance of Balaraman, husband of the petitioner, in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, till a final report is laid in the impending investigation. H.C.M.P. No.86 of 1995 is disposed of accordingly. 10. As a corollary, we have to dispense with the appearance of Balaraman, husband of the petitioner, in S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, till a final report is laid in the impending investigation. Thereafter, Balaraman may have to appear before the concerned Magistrate on issue of summons. 11. We have to recapitulate, that another Division Bench of this Court, had earlier passed an order, that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in relation to compensation and directions for registration of a crime and investigation against erring officials may have to be relegated to the appropriate forums, since disputed questions of fact may have to be resolved, but that position can no longer survive in the instant case, in view of the matter having been remitted to this Court by the Supreme Court with an observation, “that this Court will have to consider on merits, the question whether Balaraman, husband of the appellant, was illegally detained in police custody from February 16, 1994 till March 14, 1994, as claimed by her, which fact is denied by the respondents and if it was found that the said Balaraman had been illegally detained during this period as claimed by the appellant, the High Court may give appropriate relief in the said proceedings.” 12. Now that we have come to a conclusion that the report of the Enquiry Officer can be accepted prima facie, we will have to decide the appropriate reliefs that could be granted to the petitioner in this habeas corpus petition. When we questioned Mr.P. Rathinam, petitioner’s learned Advocate, on compensation he submitted, that in view of the long period of illegal detention and consequent sufferings, the petitioner and her husband must have experienced, a sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation, may have to be held to be just and reasonable. When we observed, that the compensation that may be now awarded can be ex-gratia, leaving the parties to work out the appropriate compensation in a civil forum, he submitted that in the event of an equitable compensation being awarded by this Court in this proceeding, the petitioner, who belongs to a tribe, will not approach any other forum with regard to the subject-matter of this petition. As a matter of fact, Mr.P. Rathinam, petitioner’s learned counsel, has made an endorsement on the case bundle yesterday, which reads as hereunder: “The petitioner undertakes that she will not approach any other forum for compensation with regard to the subject-matter of this petitioner.” This endorsement, Mr.P. Rathinam stated before us, was based on the instructions obtained from the petitioner. To a specific question addressed to Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as to the quantum of compensation that would be reasonable and just, he submitted, that the State would abide by the quantum fixed by this Court, which, in view will be the most appropriate compensation. 13. We have carefully scrutinised the factual details as well as the status of parties and the hardship that the petitioner and the detenu must have undergone during the fairly long period of detention between February 16, 1994 and March 14, 1994. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993)2 S.C.C. 746 , courts can certainly evolve new tools and mould remedies, to provide redressal in cases of deprivation of fundamental right like that under Art.21, especially of have nots and that award of compensation in proceedings for enforcement of fundamental rights under Arts.32 and 226 is a remedy available in public law. 14. In the usual course, disputed questions of fact may have to be resolved on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record by either party in an appropriate proceeding. However, in the instant case, we have before us the report of the Enquiry Officer, based on the evidence recorded by him. Hence, it is possible for us to quantamise the compensation that would be just, reasonable and equitable. Taking note of the factors detailed by us, coupled with the findings, which would form the basis for compensation now to be awarded by us and in view of the endorsement rightly made by petitioner’s learned counsel, on the basis of instructions obtained, we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) would be just, fair and reasonable. The petitioner and her husband (the detenu herein) would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation. The petitioner and her husband (the detenu herein) would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation. The State Government is bound to pay this sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only), which we have now awarded as compensation to the petitioner and her husband on or before 21. 1996. The State Government will certainly be entitled to recover this sum of compensation directed to be paid by it to the petitioner and her husband, from the erring officials, based not only on the report of the Enquiry Officer, but also on the foundation of the criminal trial that is likely to follow. .15. We have given our anxious consideration as to the manner in which the compensation now awarded could be used to the best advantage of the petitioner and her husband. There is no dispute that the petitioner and her husband belong to a very poor strata of society and if this sum of Rs.50,000 is handed over to them in cash, it may either be squandered away or knocked off by people not desirable by duping persuading or tempting them to utilise the sum, in not-advantageous propositions. In that context, we are of the opinion that the State Government shall invest the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) now directed to be paid as compensation to the petitioner and her husband in their joint names, in one of the State Government Undertaking Deposit Schemes, which guarantees maximum rate of interest per month payable to the depositors. The investment should be made, as already directed by us, on or before 21. 1996, so that the first instalment of interest can be drawn by the petitioner and her husband, on the first of March, 1996. Petitioner and her husband shall furnish their permanent address and other details needed for deposit, as well as the address at which the interest on the deposit in their names will have to be paid, on or before 1. 1996. This communication should be addressed to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. Petitioner and her husband shall furnish their permanent address and other details needed for deposit, as well as the address at which the interest on the deposit in their names will have to be paid, on or before 1. 1996. This communication should be addressed to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. On maturity of deposit, it will be open to the petitioner and her husband, with the aid and assistance of the Secretary, State Legal Aid Board, Madras to reinvest the amount with further interest or bonus not paid to them till then, or utilise the funds for acquisition of property or in any other beneficial manner, which would help them to utilise the money in the best possible pattern. Suitable assistance shall be rendered by the Secretary. State Legal Aid Board, Madras, if need be, in consultation with the counsel on record or any other Senior Counsel rendering assistance to the State Legal Aid Board. The initial deposit shall be for a period of five years. .16. The other question that remains to be decided, is the nature of action that should be taken against the erring officials, for it is apparent from the report of the Enquiry Officer that certain officials of the State Government were involved in the detenu getting illegally detained for a long period. It will only be logical on our acceptance of the report of the Enquiry Officer, that we should direct prosecution of those erring officials, for appropriate offences under the law by Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras. Inspector-General of Police, (Crimes) Madras, will depute a senior officer to conduct investigation under his supervision and lay the final report as expeditiously as possible. We direct the Crime Branch, C.I.D., to ensure that an F.I.R. is registered on the facts as they emanate from our order and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with all the annexures shall be sent to the Inspector General of Police, (Crimes C.B., C.I.D.), Madras. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with all the annexures shall be sent to the Inspector General of Police, (Crimes C.B., C.I.D.), Madras. We make it clear that the observation made by us herein as well as the observations made by the Enquiry Officer, shall stand restricted to that limited arena and it will be needless to add that in the trial against erring officials, the learned trial Judge will have to dispose of the case, on its inherent merits, based on the evidence placed before him and should not be carried away by any observations made in other proceedings. 17. Mr.P. Rathinam, petitioner’s learned counsel submitted that the facts that have emanated in the enquiry indicate commission of offences by erring officials under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in that area too, investigation may have to be conducted. We find from the report of the Enquiry Officer that certain material is certainly available, which probably may attract the provisions of the Act aforestated. Investigating Officer deputed by the Inspector-General of Police, Crimes, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, shall take note of all factors which emanate from the records placed before him and lay a final report on the basis of material collected by him during the course of enquiry/ investigation. 18. The net result is- .(1) A compensation of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioner and her husband, within the time stipulated by us and the said sum shall be invested in the manner detailed by us in our order. The State Government will be entitled to recover the said sum from the erring officials. .(2) The Inspector-General of Police, Crimes, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, will cause registration of an F.I.R. on the basis of material referred to by us earlier and have investigation conducted, leading to laying of final report against erring officials as early as possible. (3) S.T.C. No.629 of 1994, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti, shall stand stayed-till the laying of final report by the officer entrusted with the investigation by the Inspector-General of Police Crimes, C.B., C.I.D., Madras. During that period appearance of the detenu before the said Magistrate shall also stand dispensed with. The detenu shall appear before the said Magistrate on issue of summons after final report stands laid against erring officials. During that period appearance of the detenu before the said Magistrate shall also stand dispensed with. The detenu shall appear before the said Magistrate on issue of summons after final report stands laid against erring officials. .(4) The Inspector-General of Police Crimes, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, through the officer deputed by him, shall take steps to have the trial arising out of the final report laid by him, and S.T.C. No.628 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Panruti. tried together by the same court. 19. This habeas corpus petition and the H.C.M.Ps. are disposed of accordingly. 20. We place on record, the useful assistance rendered by Mr.P. Rathinam, learned counsel entrusted with this cause, by the Legal Aid Board and by Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.