B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) AS all the three matters are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in all the three cases is smt. Injamuri Jayamma, wife of Injamuri sagar Babu. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents herein in not prosecuting the police personnel responsible for the killing of her husband injamuri Sagar Babu in the police station. Arundelpet, Guntur in the first week of may, 1991 as per the report of the judicial commission of enquiry; for a direction to the respondents to take steps for further independent investigation and also to pay her a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. ( 4 ) IN the criminal revision (SR) No. 4642 of 2001, the challenge is against the order in r. C. S. No. 55 of 1996 dated 9-4-1996 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif magistrate at Guntur accepting the final report in Cr. No. 172 of 1992 on the file of the police Station Arundelpet, Guntur and closing the case as mistake of fact. ( 5 ) CRL. M. P. NO. 1701 of 2001 is filed for condoning the delay in filing the said Crl. Revision. ( 6 ) IN brief, the case of the petitioner is that she belongs to a scheduled caste community and she has been residing with her husband injamuri Sagar Babu alias Sagar Rao and three children in Bongaralabeedu in Guntur town. Her husband used to make a living by repairing and making footwear. On the intervening night of 1 /2-5-1991 her husband and his friend Madhavarapu Ranga Rao were accosted by two police constables v. Radhakrishna Murthy and V. Ramu on suspicion when they were walking along the first line, Arundelpet in Guntur town and taken to the police station by force and beaten all along by constable Radhakrishna Murthy. They were also beaten at the police station by the said Radhakrishna Murthy and also by others. Even though he was detained throughout the day, he was not produced before the Magistrate though the complex of sessions and Munsif Courts is at a stone- throw distance. They were also beaten at the police station by the said Radhakrishna Murthy and also by others. Even though he was detained throughout the day, he was not produced before the Magistrate though the complex of sessions and Munsif Courts is at a stone- throw distance. On the night of 2-5-1991, the inspector of Police of Guntur town, Musunuri ravi beat the said Sagar Babu severely with sticks and banged his head against the wall of the lock up cell. By mid-night, the petitioner s husband became unconscious. Thereafter, under the directors of the inspector Musunuri Ravi, Sagar Babu, who was in a bad shape, was put in a rickshaw and sent along with constables to the residence of the petitioner. As he was found in an unconscious state, he was taken to the general Hospital, Guntur where he lay unconscious and ultimately died on 4-5-1991. ( 7 ) IT is pointed out that the cause was taken up by several dalit (down-trodden) and civil rights organisations which led to the appointment of a judicial commission of enquiry by the Government under Section 3 of the Commissioner of Inquiry Act headed by a retired District and Sessions Judge sri D. Ramalingaswamy, to go into the reference. The Commission after enquiry submitted a report holding that the death of sagar Babu was due to the injuries received in the police lock up and however, the persons responsible for the same could not be identified and therefore, recommended for a thorough Investigation by an unbiased superior officer at a high level. The said report was accepted by the Government by placing the same before the Legislative assembly and the matter was entrusted to the CID of the State Police. In spite of the same, when nothing was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted representations on 5-3-1994, 31-8-1996 and 4-7-1999 but were of no avail. The petitioner in fact also sought compensation at least as provided under g. O. Ms. No. 439 of 1997 General administration Department in a sum of rs. 20,000/- as ex gratia. In the meanwhile, on the instructions of the CID, the death of sagar Babu was registered as Cr. No. 172 of 1992 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and was taken up as R. C. S. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif magistrate, Guntur. 20,000/- as ex gratia. In the meanwhile, on the instructions of the CID, the death of sagar Babu was registered as Cr. No. 172 of 1992 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and was taken up as R. C. S. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif magistrate, Guntur. However, as the compensation was not forthcoming, the writ petition was filed. ( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents herein, apart from denying the entire allegations, the entire sequel of events were spoken to. Further, it was asserted that the death of the petitioner s husband was not in the police lock up but only because of drinking. On the said intervening night the petitioner s husband was found along with his friend M. Ranga rao on the street and when questioned by the beat constables V. Radhakrishna Murthy and V. Ramu of Arundelpet Police Station, they ran away and the deceased fell down and received those injuries. It is also pointed out that subsequent to the entrustment of the case to the CID, Cr. No. 172 of 1992 was registered and on the final report filed on 29-11-1993, the case was closed as a mistake of fact after giving notice to the brother of the deceased Vinjamuri John. Therefore, the question of granting any relief does not arise. ( 9 ) THE petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that it is only for the first time that she had come to know about the closing of the criminal case as a mistake of fact on 9-4-1996 after the filing of the counter affidavit and in fact neither she nor her brother-in-law v. John received any notice before any such orders are passed. It is also pointed out that when her Counsel B. Chandrasekhar of guntur town filed a copy application on 8-11-2000 for the copy of the said orders before the Court, the same was returned on 21-11-2000 for furnishing the number of the case and date of the order. It was pointed out that as she was unable to furnish those particulars, she could not possible obtain the copy thereof and make necessary challenge. It was pointed out that as she was unable to furnish those particulars, she could not possible obtain the copy thereof and make necessary challenge. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner filed the criminal revision on 3-4-2001 challenging the orders of the Court below dated 9- 4-1996 closing the case as mistake of fact inter alia on various grounds including that there was no notice to her nor to her brother-in-law V. John and there was also no opportunity given. Along with the said revision the petitioner had filed Crl. M. P. No. 1701 of 2001 under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1740 days in filing the said criminal revision mainly on the ground that she was not aware of those proceedings as she was not given any notice and it is only for the first time she had come to know of its disposal through the counter filed in the writ petition. Hence, she seeks indulgence in condoning the delay. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Government pleader for Home and taking into consideration the facts of the case and also the fact that the petitioner admittedly had not notice of such proceedings, Crl. M. P. No. 1701 of 2001 is allowed and the delay is condoned. The office is directed to number the criminal revision. ( 12 ) SRI K. Balagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, principally submitted that the factum of death of the petitioner s husband in the police lockup or as a result of beating received by him at the hands of the police cannot be disputed in view of the finding of the Commission which was accepted by the Government through their final action taken report and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to compensation apart from the necessary consequential prosecution of the police personnel responsible for such acts. It is also further contended that subsequent to the acceptance of the report by the State government, the matter was entrusted to the CB CID who had filed a final report before the Court of Magistrate on 29-11-1993 and without issuing any notice or without hearing the petitioner or her brother-in-law v. John, the crime registered in Cr. It is also further contended that subsequent to the acceptance of the report by the State government, the matter was entrusted to the CB CID who had filed a final report before the Court of Magistrate on 29-11-1993 and without issuing any notice or without hearing the petitioner or her brother-in-law v. John, the crime registered in Cr. No. 172 of 1992 and taken up as R. C. S. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, guntur was closed as a mistake of fact as per orders dated 9- 4-1996. Therefore, the entire procedure as adopted by the learned magistrate is quite contrary to the mandate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure. ( 13 ) THE learned Government pleader for home appearing on behalf of the respondents herein seriously sought to repel the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that once the identity of the persons responsible for the death of the petitioner shusband could not be established, the question of prosecuting the criminal case further would not arise and the notice was duly served on V. John, the brother-in-law of the petitioner and, therefore, there is sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Further, It is also his case that in view of the facts and circumstances, where there is no direct evidence to fix any responsibility on the police personnel, it is not a fit case to warrant any awarding of compensation. ( 14 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State sought to contend that there is sufficient compliance of the procedure as contemplated under section 173 Cr. P. C. , by issuing a notice immediately on the filing of the final report and the Court has closed the case as a mistake of fact rightly. Therefore, it would not call for any interference by this Court in a revision. ( 15 ) ON a consideration of the aforesaid submissions and on a perusal of the record, the case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner s husband and his friend were walking on the road on the intervening night of 1/2-5-1991 they were forcibly taken away by the police to the Arundelpet police station and were beaten both on the way and in the police station. That apart, the concerned inspector by name Musunuri Ravi also beat the petitioner s husband in the night as a result of which he became unconscious and subsequently he was dumped back at his house at the instance of the Inspector by the police constables. After admitting the deceased in the Government hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 4-5-1991. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the deceased died only as a result of the beating at the hands of the police personnel. Hence, the petitioner claims that she is entitled to compensation and the persons responsible should be prosecuted in accordance with law. ( 16 ) THE fact remains that the State government appointed an Inquiry commission headed by a retired District and Sessions Judge to enquire into the death of Injamuri Sagar Babu under suspicious circumstances in the Government hospital, guntur on 4-5-1991 with the terms of reference as follows: (A) To find out the circumstances leading to the death of Injamuri Sagar Babu in government General Hospital, guntur on 4-5-1991. (b) To identify the person or persons if any responsible for the death of injamuri Sagar Babu; and (c) To point out lapses on the part of any authority or person if any in connection with the incident. ( 17 ) AFTER conducting an enquiry, wherein several witness were examined on both sides, the Commission submitted a report on 4-3-1992 with a finding in regard to the aforesaid three references that (i) it is an undisputed fact that on the mid night of 1/2-5-1991 at about 1. 30 P. M. constables v. Ramu, C. W. 2 and V. Radhakrishna murthy, C. W. 3 found Madhavarapu Ranga rao, C. W. 1 and the deceased in a drunken state and there were injuries including serious external injuries on Sagar Babu resulting in unconsciousness of the deceased. The death of Sagar Babu in the Government Hospital, guntur on 4-5-1991 is due to the injuries caused to him when he was in the police lock up, Arundelpet Police Station from 2. 00 a. m. on 2-5-1991 till about 2. 00 A. M. on 3-5-1991. (b) the Commission is not able to identify the person or persons if any responsible for the death of Sagar Babu. 00 a. m. on 2-5-1991 till about 2. 00 A. M. on 3-5-1991. (b) the Commission is not able to identify the person or persons if any responsible for the death of Sagar Babu. The identity could not be established due to the lapses on the part of the police authorities in not properly and timely conducting a thorough investigation after registering the first information. (c) In regard to the third reference, the Commission recommended that it is a fit case for a further thorough investigation by an unbiased superior officer to establish the identity of the culprits and to book them under law. ( 18 ) ON placing of the report of the commission before the State Legislative assembly, the Government has accepted the same and the recommendation of the commission to have a thorough investigation by an unbiased superior officer was also accepted and the matter was entrusted to the cid for a thorough investigation at a fairly high level and report. ( 19 ) THEREAFTER, the matter was entrusted to the CID on 3-7-1992 which registered a case in Cr. No. 172 of 1992 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC which was taken on file as R. C. S. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the VII additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, conducted enquiry and submitted a final report on 29-11-1993 before the Court stating it as a mistake of fact. Though the said report was submitted on 29-11-1993, the Magistrate passed the final orders on 9- 4-1996 to the following effect: "treated as mistake of fact. " ( 20 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that any opportunity was given to any person on behalf of the deceased before the said order is passed. Even otherwise, apparently, the said order is a laconic one and does not contain any reasons. ( 21 ) IT is thus evident that the finding of the commission of Inquiry as to the cause of death of the deceased being at the hands of the police is accepted by the Government and thus it became final, conclusive and binding. Therefore, this aspect cannot be disputed nor can form part of any further enquiry. ( 21 ) IT is thus evident that the finding of the commission of Inquiry as to the cause of death of the deceased being at the hands of the police is accepted by the Government and thus it became final, conclusive and binding. Therefore, this aspect cannot be disputed nor can form part of any further enquiry. The only question which was left open by the Commission was to identify the persons responsible in connection with the incident for which the recommendation of the Commission to have a thorough investigation by an unbiased superior officer was again accepted by the Government and it was entrusted to the CID for thorough investigation fairly at a high level. ( 22 ) IN Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, considering the scope of Section 173 Cr. P. C. , the apex Court held that when the Magistrate decides not to take cognisance of an offence or to drop the proceedings against some persons mentioned in the FIR, he must give notice and hearing to the first informant. ( 23 ) IN Rupan Deal Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, once again considering the scope of Section 173 cr. P. C. , the apex Court has held:"since at the time of taking cognisance, the Court has to exercise its judicial discretion it necessarily follows that if in a given case as the present one, he complainant, as the person aggrieved raises objections to the acceptance of a police report which recommends discharge of the accused and seeks to satisfy the Court that a case for taking cognisance was made out, but the Court overrules such objections, it is just and desirable that the reasons therefore be recorded. Necessity to give reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the issues before the Court needs no emphasis. Reasons introduce clarity and minimise chances of arbitrariness. That necessarily means that recording of reasons will not be necessary when the Court accepts such police report without any demur from the complainant. Necessity to give reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the issues before the Court needs no emphasis. Reasons introduce clarity and minimise chances of arbitrariness. That necessarily means that recording of reasons will not be necessary when the Court accepts such police report without any demur from the complainant. " ( 24 ) IN Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the apex Court while considering Articles 21,32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, reiterated the entitlement of compensation in case of custodial deaths holding:"contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms by State and its agencies -- claim for monetary compensation in petition under Art. 32 or 226 i. e. , in public law - same only mode of redress available for contravention - it is acknowledged remedy - Court has obligation to grant relief - defence of sovereign immunity - not available. " ( 25 ) IN view of the aforesaid principles, it is now fairly settled that in case of custodial deaths, this Court has ample powers to grant necessary compensation. Further, having regard to the principles laid down as to the mandatory requirements of Section 173 cr. P. C. , in the instant case, glaringly, the learned Magistrate did not give any reasons much less any opportunity of hearing either to the said V. John to whom the notice was alleged to have been served or to the petitioner. The order passed by the Magistrate also is a one line order whereas the final report runs into pages and there is absolutely no consideration either way for accepting or rejecting the same and the reasons therefor. ( 26 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition and the criminal revision are allowed directing the respondents herein to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner herein for the death of her husband Injamuri Sagar Babu within a period of three months from today and the order dated 9- 4-1996 in R. C. S. No. 5 of 1996 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of VII Additional Munsif magistrate, Guntur for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties. No costs.