( 1 ) THE High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, in its Imphal Bench, allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by the first respondent and awarded a sum of rupees one lakh to her, having found that her husband had been last seen in the custody of the security forces and had not been produced. ( 2 ) THE locale of the events that gave rise to the writ petition is the State of Manipur, a disturbed area in which the security forces had been deployed to maintain law and order. It was the case of the first respondent that her husband Budha Singh had been taken away by army personnel on 6-11-1983. Budha Singhs brother Pishak Singh had on 7-11-1983 visited the army camp concerned and enquired about Budha Singh but no information was given to him. The brother informed the first respondent of this and a complaint was lodged with the officer in charge of Lamlai Police Station. Various attempts to locate Budha Singh were thereafter made, but to no effect. In December 1983 the writ petition was filed. ( 3 ) THE writ petition was heard 5 years later, but no trace of Budha Singh had been found. ( 4 ) THE case of the appellants was that on 6-11-1983 Budha Singh, who indulged in anti-national activities, had been contacted by and had voluntarily accompanied the security forces. This happened again on 7-11- 1983 when Budha Singh led a column of security forces which, in the early hours of 8-11-1983, was taken by him to an abandoned hut, allegedly the meeting place of extremists, near Village Champhong. When no extremists were found in the hut, Budha Singh requested to be allowed to consult the headman to ascertain the exact location of the extremists hideout. He said that he would return by noon. He requested that no security personnel should accompany him lest he be identified as an informer. Accordingly, he was not accompanied by security personnel and, according to the appellants, he did not return. He said that he would return by noon. He requested that no security personnel should accompany him lest he be identified as an informer. Accordingly, he was not accompanied by security personnel and, according to the appellants, he did not return. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the appellants that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition on 9-1-1984, the Superintendent, CID had sent a message to the inspector, CID, Ukhrul informing him that Budha Singh had been seen on a motorcycle with one Biren Singh from Keibi Village on 3-1-1984 and a copy of this message was sent to the relevant army command. On 4-4-1984 havildar Ranjit Singh had seen Budha Singh at 1000 hours near Humine. This was when three persons were found moving around in suspicious circumstances but, when approached to carry out a search, had moved towards the international border and could not be apprehended. ( 6 ) THE High Court rejected the appellants case in paras 4 and 5 of its judgment, which we quote in extenso:"to lend assurance to the case of the army, Respondents 2 and 3 filed additional affidavit on 12-12-1984 enclosing as Annexure I a WT message dated 9-1-1984 from the Superintendent of Police/cid, manipur that Budha Singh was seen on a motorcycle with one Biren singh on 3-l-1984 at Lamleng Gate while they were proceeding towards ukhrul. This WT message does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Manipur on 5-3-1984 nothing has been stated about this WT message. According to the State, after the Chief Minister had received a representation from the petitioner on 5-12-1983, all concerned were requested to find out Budha Singh; and so if the State police would have located Budha Singh, the State machinery must have been acquainted about it, as even the Chief minister had been approached to find out Budha Singh. The source of information is also vague as it speaks that the matter was reliably learnt. Who is the author of the information is not known. This apart, there is no supporting material to assure our minds about the truthfulness of the news sent by the WT message in question. To lend credence to the wt message, Biren Singh, whose mention has been made in the communication, could have been asked to file an affidavit. Who is the author of the information is not known. This apart, there is no supporting material to assure our minds about the truthfulness of the news sent by the WT message in question. To lend credence to the wt message, Biren Singh, whose mention has been made in the communication, could have been asked to file an affidavit. But this has not been done. For these reasons we are not inclined to place reliance on the aforesaid communication. This is however not all. The additional affidavit has sought to rely on a source Report dated 4-4-1984. It has stated that one Havildar Ranjit singh who was leading an army column had seen three persons moving under suspicious circumstances near the international boundary and when they chased them they proceeded towards the border crossing it. One of the persons of the group was identified as Budha Singh. In support of this Source Report, Respondents 2 and 3 filed an affidavit of havildar Ranjit Singh dated 12-12-1984. We have not felt inclined to place full reliance on this piece of information because we have our doubts regarding proper identification of Budha Singh by the Havildar. We have said so because the statement in the affidavit that Havildar ranjit Singh knew Budha Singh since November 1983 as the latter used to come to the army camp for giving certain information is of doubtful veracity inasmuch as nobody else has spoken about the visit of Budha singh to the army camp to give information. This apart, from the DO letter of Major Anand dated 26-11-1983 of which reference has been made earlier it appears that according to the army Budha Singh was involved in anti-national activities and it is for this purpose that he was called for questioning by the army on 6-11-1983 and 7-11-1983. A person who was regarded to have indulged in anti-national activities could not have come to the army camp for giving certain information to the army. Further as nobody else had supported the version of Havildar ranjit Singh, we do not think if we would be justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner solely on the basis of the affidavit of Havildar ranjit Singh who is definitely an interested person. "we think that in the circumstances set out in the paragraphs that we have quoted, the High Court was right in rejecting the case of the appellants. "we think that in the circumstances set out in the paragraphs that we have quoted, the High Court was right in rejecting the case of the appellants. ( 7 ) WE may add that if Budha Singh had not returned on 8-11-1983 in the circumstances claimed by the appellants, we would have expected the security forces, as a disciplined and orderly body, to have made a contemporaneous entry in this bshalf in some register or record maintained by them, to have lodged a report with the police or civilian authorities and to have made efforts to contact the family of Budha Singh to inform them of what had transpired. That no record or report was produced would go to show that no contemporaneous record was made and no report was lodged with the civilian authorities. That Budha Singhs family was not contacted is a given fact. All this also suggests that the version of events given by the appellants was not to be relied upon. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High court or the award of rupees one lakh made to the first respondent. ( 9 ) AS to the plea on behalf of the appellants that the affidavits on their behalf should not have been rejected by the High Court without a factual enquiry, we would comment that the High Court ought to have added that it was open to the first respondent to file a suit against the appellants to claim damages, if so advised. In that event a trial on facts would have been necessary and would have taken place. As it is, Budha Singh was last seen in the company of security forces, now 16 years ago. The security forces must, therefore, be held to be liable to make payment of the aforestated nominal amount of rupees one lakh to the 1st respondent. ( 10 ) THE appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs, quantified at rs 5000. Civil Appeal No. 4392 of 1988 ( 11 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We find no reason whatsoever to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5000.