In this writ petition, the petitioner, Mr. Kinjinbou Liangmei made a prayer for issuing an appropriate writ to the respondents directing them to pay compensation to his son, Mr. SP Philip, a Class VII student, who had suffered tremendous pains and agony because of the illegal arrest, torture and interrogation during the detention period by the respondents and also to quash the Police Case registered against his son, Mr. SP Philip, under FIR Case No. 37 (5) 92 KPI PS by contending, inter alia, that his son Mr. SP Philip, a promising Class VII student of Diamond English High School, Kangpokpi at the relevant time with good moral character and aged about 13 years at the point of time, was arrested on 7th May, 1992 at about 6.30 PM by the 3rd Assam Rifles posted at Kangpokpi from Kangpokpi Bazar, and he was detained, interrogated and tortured till 11th May, 1992 at the Assam Rifles Camp and that during the period of detention as well as in the course of interrogation, Mr. SP Philip was slapped, blind-folded for days together, undressed, hands were twisted and tied behind, given hard blows and several boot kicks on different portions of his person, beaten with lathi, burnt his chest with cigarette butts, made to stand the whole night without sleep, exposed to mosquito bites and moreover, scanty food was served during the period of detention. But he was handed over on llth May, 1992around 5.00PM by the 3rd Assam Rifles to the Kangpokpi Police Station after heavy pressure was given by the Hon'ble Chairman, Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly. A case, being FIR Case No.37(5) 92, under section 121, 121A, IPC, 3 (2) (ii) TADA (P) Act, and 25 (1) (a), Arms Act, was registered against Mr. SP Philip, son of the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, his said son, Mr. SP Philip, is quite innocent of the charges levelled against him and, rather, the Assam Rifles personnel took four days to hand over his son to Kangpokpi PS which lies hardly half a kilometre away from the Assam Rifles Post on the 39 National Highway (Imphal-Kohima Road). It is also the case of the writ petitioner that non-involvement of his said son, Mr. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that non-involvement of his said son, Mr. SP Philip, in any unlawful activity is transparent from the letter of the Officiating Commandant, 3rd Assam Rifles, dated 12th May, 1992, as in Annexure D to the writ petition, which highlighted that Mr. Philip will be discharged without any problem since he was neither a firer nor weapon was recovered from him. A writ petition was also filed before this Court on 11th May, 1992 by the present writ petitioner under Civil Rule No (HC) 9 of 1992, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his son, Mr. SP Philip, before the Court and this Court, after hearing the parties, directed the respondents, specially the Commanding Officer (CO), 3rd Assam Rifles at Maram Village, Senapati District, to produce the said Mr.SP Philip before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Senapati, within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the order, vide order dated 12th May, 1992 passed in the said civil rule. It is also urged that Mr. SP Philip was produced by the police before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kangpokpi on 12 May, 1992 and he was remanded to police custody till 21st May, 1992, and thereafter, Mr. Philip was remanded to judicial custody till 27th May, 1992 and, meanwhile, an application for bail was moved by the writ petitioner under Criminal Misc (B) Case No. 16/92 before the Designated Court, Manipur West, and thereafter, the learned Judge of the Designated Court was pleased to enlarge Mr. Philip on bail, vide order dated 27th May, 1992, as seen in the document marked as Annexure F to the writ petition. As Mr. SP Philip was again rearrested on 27th May, 1992 at around 6.00 PM at the gate of Manipur Central Jail by the Imphal Police and detained in the Imphal Police Station till 10.30 AM on 28th May, 1992, Mr Philip could not appear in his First Terminal Examination scheduled on 28th May, 1992 due to the illegal detention by Imphal Police. Urging all these statements by the writ petitioner and highlighting the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner sought for adequate compensation on the main ground that the personal liberty of Mr. Urging all these statements by the writ petitioner and highlighting the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner sought for adequate compensation on the main ground that the personal liberty of Mr. Philip as guaranted under Article 21 read with Article 39 (e), (f) and 47 of the Constitution of India, has been deprived of and, rather, his family members have suffered physical, mental and financial loss in an irreparable manner. 2. No counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India and also by the State of Manipur, except the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3, the Commanding Officer (CO), 3rd Assam Rifles, sworn to by the Deputy Commandant, 3rd Assam Rifles. 3. Mr. S..Risom, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, argued that it is a clear case of wrongful detention of a person like Mr. SP Philip, a minor boy of 13 years, by the respondents, inasmuch as the detenu, Mr Philip was not produced or handed over by the respondent No. 3 to the Officer In-charge of the nearest Police Station with the least possible delay and rather, it took long four days on the part of the Assam Rifles to hand over Mr. Philip to Kangpokpi Police Station, which is violative of the provisions of Articles 21, 39 (e), (f) and 47 of the Constitution of India. 4. The factum of production of Mr. Philip by the Assam Rifles personnel before the police and the time taken, that is, four days, is not disputed by the respondents and, as such, the respondents have defied all the established principles of law laid down under Articles 21,22 of the Constitution of India as well as the relevant provisions of law laid down under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, applicable to the State of Manipur, Mr. Risom contended. The learned counsel also argued that adequate compensation must be afforded to Mr. Philip and his family members for wrongful detention and confinement of a person like Mr. Philip in the custody of the Assam Rifles as well as the police and for the mental agony and sufferings caused to his family members. 5. Now, this Court is to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has enforceable legal right in the instant case and whether the detention and the custody of Mr. Philip under the respondents is illegal or not. 6. 5. Now, this Court is to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has enforceable legal right in the instant case and whether the detention and the custody of Mr. Philip under the respondents is illegal or not. 6. It is not disputed by the respondents, particularly, the 3rd respondent, that on 7th May, 1992 Mr. SP Philip was apprehended by the Assam Rifles personnel and he was handed over to Kangpokpi Police Station on 11th May, 1992. According to the 3rd respondent, the said Mr. Philip was not tortured during the aforesaid period of detention in the custody of the 3rd respondent and the detenu was good, normal and appropriate meals during his detention. On a bare perusal of the letter issued by the Officiating Commandant, 3 Assam Rifles on 12th May, 1992, addressed to Mr. ID Dijuanang, Chairman, Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly it has been revealed that Mr. Philip was found along side of other accused and there was no weapon with him and that he will be discharged without any problem, since he was neither a firer nor weapon was recovered from him, as seen in the document marked Annexure D to the writ petition. From all these materials on record, it can be rightly concluded that the Assam Rifles personnel, particularly, respondent No.3, took four days to hand over Mr. Philip to Kangpokpi Police Station. 7. So far as the allegation of the writ petitioner about the detention of his son Mr. SP Philip by the Imphal Police Station and for his son's inability to appear in the First Terminal Examination, 1992,-due to the illegal detention, I am of the view that there is no material for establishing the fact that the said Mr. Philip could not appear in the First Terminal Examination scheduled on 28th May, 1992, as no supporting certificate was ever issued by the concerned Principal of the school, nor appended or produced before this Court and that there is no indication in the related Time Table, as in Annexure G to the writ petition, that the said First Terminal Examination will start or commence from which time, either in the morning session or in the evening session. 8. 8. It is well settled that before a person is deprived of his personal liberty, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed to the disadvantage of the person affected. Right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution means something more than mere survival or animal existence and it would include the right to live with human dignity. Under the related sections 4 and 5 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, as applicable to the State of Manipur, there are procedure for arrest and production of person or persons. For better appreciation of the matter, the related provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act are quoted below : "4. Special powers of the armed forces. Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in a disputed area-......... (c) arrest, without warrant, any person who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest. 5. Arrested persons to be made over to the police. Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the Officer In-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest." 9. The law is quite clear that if any person is arrested and taken into custody under the said Act, he shall made over to the Officer In-charge of the nearest Police Station with the least possible delay. In the instant case, Mr. Philip was apprehended by the 3 Assam Rifles personnel on 7th May, 1992 around 6.30 PM and he was kept under the custody of the 3rd respondent till 11 th May, 1992 at the very post which lies hardly half a kilometre away from Kangpokpi Police Station, but the Assam Rifles took four days to handover Mr. Philip to Kangpokpi PS. In my considered view, the respondent No.l and the said Assam Rifles personnel had completely violated the established principles of law laid down under sections 4 and 5 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, thus detaining Mr. Philip to Kangpokpi PS. In my considered view, the respondent No.l and the said Assam Rifles personnel had completely violated the established principles of law laid down under sections 4 and 5 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, thus detaining Mr. Philip in their custody unlawfully and thus causing mental agony to the family members of the writ petitioner, for which adequate compensation is called for. This Court is constrained to make the following observation. 10. Considering the existing facts and circumstances of the case, armed personnel or paramilitary authority of police officers who are the custodians of law and order, should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. 11. For the reasons and discussions made above, I direct the respondent Nos 1 and 3 to afford compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to Mr. SP Philip, a young student, through his father the writ petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with cost of Rs.5,()00/-(Rs five thousand), which shall be paid by respondent Nos 1 and 3 to the writ petitioner.