S. B. SINHA, C. J, J. ( 1 ) IS writ application shows a sorry state of affairs. It shows how the State in some cases of causing death to the citizens of India in alleged encounters is dealing with the matter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the father of the deceased (Atkuri Srinivas ). He alleges that on 3-12-1998 a Head Constable by name Shaik Chand, constable by name Dasarath and ten plain clothes policemen of Kotapalli police station carrying weapons came to their house and knocked at the door and upon opening the door, they forcibly entered and picked up the deceased (Atkuri Srinivas) and took him with them. The parents deceased went to the police station the next day morning but his arrest was denied, On 4-12.-1998 a newspapers report arose wherein it was alleged that the said Atkuri Srinivas said to be a deputy Dalam member of Peoples War Party was killed in encounter. The petitioner contends that the authorities of the State had refused to take disciplinary action against persons named hereinbefore nor registered a crime. The said persons are arrayed as respondents Nos. 6 and 7 along with others. It appears that a magisterial enquiry has been directed in the year 1998 and therein 12 witnesses were examined. No first information report has admittedly been lodged although more than two years have elapsed. Having regard to the aforementioned situation, by an order dated 8-2-2001 this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial to personally appear before this Court whereupon Sri B. Anajaih said to be the Revenue Divisional Officer was present before this Court and submitted an affirmed affidavit stating :"the Collector and District Magistrate, Adilabad has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mancherial as Enquiry Officer to conduct magisterial enquiry vide Proc. No. D3/ 1907/98, dt. 30-12-1998 (copy enclosed ). The enquiry is with regard an incident dt. 4-12-1998 at about 0400 hours, in which it has been stated that exchange of fire has taken place between Cennur Dalam (PWG) and Police party at Kambojipet village, resulting in the death of one person by name Atkuri Srinivas alias Ravi, s/o Sammaiah, R/o Mallampet village, Kotapalli. The said order was received by me on 8-1-1999. On receipt of the said order, I have sent intimation to Circle Inspector, Chennur to furnish the following documents. 1. FIR2. The said order was received by me on 8-1-1999. On receipt of the said order, I have sent intimation to Circle Inspector, Chennur to furnish the following documents. 1. FIR2. Inquest Report ( 3 ) LIST of participants in exchange of fire and list of other witnesses examined by the I. O. ( 4 ) SKETCH of the scene of offence. ( 5 ) COPY of PME. I submit that the same was received by me on 22-7-1999 from the Circle Inspector, Chennur. After receiving the said information, I have Issued a paper publication on 9-11-2000 in Vartha Telugu Daily, district edition, Adilabad Informing the public that the enquiry will be held on 27-11-2000 and whoever is Interested in coming and giving evidence about the cause of death can participate in the enquiry being held by me on 27-11-2000. On 27-11-2000 the complainant, father of the deceased A Sammaiah and mother Sammakka and some villagers in total numbering about 12 have attended the enquiry. Their statements were recorded. One police constable and one SI of Police, Padmanabhya Reddy were examined as far as police personnel are concerned. The enquiry was again held on 18-12-2000. On this day no civilians were present. We could examine only one police personnel, the S. I. of Mancherial who earlier worked at Kotapally a participant in the exchange of fire. "3. Upon that this Court expressed its dissatisfaction as regards the mode and manner of enquiry which is sought to be conducted. On 16-2-2001 an additional affidvit has been filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police alleging therein: "at the time of the inquest on 4-12-1998, the Executive Magistrate (Mandal Revenue Officer), Chennur recorded the statement of the writ petitioner and in that statement he mentioned that his elder son Atkuri Srinivas was working as a Member of Peoples War Group Squad. He was only meeting him now and then. The writ petitioner tried to persuade him, but he would not listen. This statement also clearly contradicts his assertion in the affidvit file into this Court about the arrest of Atkuri Srinivas. He had voluntarily given a statement earlier that his son had left the house one month prior to the date of the alleged encounter. This statement of his is also corroborated by his wife and his adult son and two persons belonging to his village. He had voluntarily given a statement earlier that his son had left the house one month prior to the date of the alleged encounter. This statement of his is also corroborated by his wife and his adult son and two persons belonging to his village. There is no reference in the affidvit filed in the writ petition to his statements at the time of inquest. There is reason to believe that the affidavit in the High Court is a tutored affidavit filed into the Court at the instance of the sympathisers of Peoples War Group to malign the police and the Government. English translation copies of the original Telugu statements referred to above are filed along with this affidavit marked as Annexures A. B. C. D. and E. The same may kindly be perused. The original statements in Telugu are available in the files which are also being kept ready for scrutiny by this Hon ble Court. It is relevant to bring to the notice of this Court that one Itha Rajeswar Reddy, President, Mandal Praja Parlshad, Chennur was brutally murdered on 3-12-1998. In that connection out of 31 accused, three persons were arrested viz. , (i) Metpalli Venkati was arrested on 6-7-1999 in connection with Crime No. 98/98 under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149, IPC Section 25 (1) (a) and 27 of I. A. Act of Chennur Police station. (ii) Katavent Lingaiah was arrested on 13-9-1999 in connection with crime No. 96/98 under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149, IPC, Sections 25 (1) (A) and 27 of I. A. Act of Chennur police station. (iii) Mothe Shankar was arrested on 31-1-1999 In connection with Crime No. 50/98 under S. 302, IPC, S. 25 (1) (a) of I. A. Act, Section 8 (1) of A. P. P. S. Act of Jaipur police station, Adilabad district. These three persons confessed before the mediators (1) Munjampalli Rajaiah and (2) Galipalli Yellalah residents of Kistampet village, Chennur mandal, Adilabad district and (3) Rebbena Subhash and (4) Bogadamidhi Suresh, (5) Matheti Punnam, (6) Gollapalli Madhunaiah, residents of Bheemaram, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District, residents of Kotabogada village, Chennur mandal, Adilabad district that they were responsible for the murder and that Atkuri Srinivas alias Ravi was one of the persons who murdered Itha Rajeswar Reddy. English translation copies of their confessional statements recorded in Telugu are also being filed herewith marked as Annexures F, G and H. The averment of the writ petitioner that his son is an ordinary agricultural coolie and has no connection whatsoever with P. W. G. is false from the fact that the accused was involved in several offences of which he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in crime No. 47/1997 under Ss. 147, 148, 435, 436 read with 149, S. 4 of P. D. P. P. Act, Section 25 (1) (a) of I. A. Act of Kotapalli police station, Adilabad district. Subsequently, the deceased/accused was enlarged on bail. The case is pending trial vide P. R. C. No. 79/ 2000 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur. "4. Certain additional material papers have been placed before us containing the statements of the petitioner, his wife and others. 5. It is really a matter of deep concern for the Courts who consider the protection of human life and liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India to be a very valuable right to come across cases where such serious matters are dealt with by the Executive in a casual and cavalier manner. It is not in dispute that having regard to the several reports of encounters, some of which are alleged to be fake ones, the National Human Rights Commission had issued certain guidelines in the matter. We have not been informed that the said guidelines have been adopted in the course of the magisterial enquiry. ( 6 ) MAGISTERIAL enquiry is normally conducted in terms of S. 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not as in other cases. Although we do not suggest that in no other case magisterial enquiry can be directed but such an enquiry can be directed for the purpose of arriving at a preliminary finding to identify the persons against whom a prima facie case is established. By no stretch of imagination such an enquiry can be allowed to be conducted in a slip shod manner and that too for a period of more than two and half years. The Revenue Divisional Officer, upon questioning, stated before us that he had been entrusted with about 40 similar enquiries. By no stretch of imagination such an enquiry can be allowed to be conducted in a slip shod manner and that too for a period of more than two and half years. The Revenue Divisional Officer, upon questioning, stated before us that he had been entrusted with about 40 similar enquiries. If that is the position it is clearly indicative of the fact that deaths of several persons must have taken place in encounters some of which as indicated hereinbefore are said to be fake ones. The Apex Court in People s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433 : ( AIR 1997 SC 568 ) categorically held that the matter relating to custodial deaths must be considered having regard to the International Agreements and Covenants in which the Government of India is signatory. It observed :"6. It is true that Manipur is a disturbed area, that there appears to be a good amount of terrorist activity affecting public order and, may be, even security of that State. It may also be that under these conditions, certain additional and unusual powers have to be given to the police to deal with terrorism. It may be necessary to fight terrorism with a strong hand which may involve vesting of good amount of discretion in the police officers or other paramilitary forces engaged in fighting them. If the version of the police with respect to the incident in question were true, there could have been no question of any interference by the Court. Nobody can say that the police should wait till they are shot at. It is for the force on the spot to decide when to act, how to act and where to act. It is not for the Court to say how the terrorists should be fought. We cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of our independence, our territorial integrity is not fully secure. There are several types of separatist and terrorist activities in several parts of the country. They have to be subdued. Whether they should be fought politically or be dealt with by force is a matter of policy for the Government to determine. The Courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine those questions. All this is beyond dispute. There are several types of separatist and terrorist activities in several parts of the country. They have to be subdued. Whether they should be fought politically or be dealt with by force is a matter of policy for the Government to determine. The Courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine those questions. All this is beyond dispute. But the present case appears to be one where two persons along with some others were just seized from the hut, taken to a long distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot certainly be countenanced by the Courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If the police had information that territories were gathering at a particular place and if they had surprised them and arrested them, the proper course for them was to deal with them according to law. "administrative liquidation" was certainly not a course open to them". ( 7 ) EVEN if we hold that the situation in some areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh is similar to that of Manipur, still then, those cases where allegations are made that the deaths caused in encounters are forced ones, with a view to redress the grievances of the members of the deceased family, the minimum that the State should do is to direct proper enquiry. The mode and manner in which the so called magisterial enquiries are being conducted to say the least is deplorable. As noticed hereinbefore although the police files were sought for by the said Mandal Revenue Officer in January, 1999 the same were sent to him only in July, 1999. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners and other inhabitants would normally be afraid of deposing before the police and may even be coerced to depose falsely, we are of the opinion that such enquiry should be conducted by an independent agency. We may note that a Division Bench of this Court in K. G. Kannabiran v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of A. P. (1997) 1 Andh LJ (Cri) 466 directed :"11. . . . . . . It is difficult even to imagine that Police Officers who used fire-arm to hit at the body of Madhusudan Raj Yadav were not aware that by such act they were likely to cause his death. of A. P. (1997) 1 Andh LJ (Cri) 466 directed :"11. . . . . . . It is difficult even to imagine that Police Officers who used fire-arm to hit at the body of Madhusudan Raj Yadav were not aware that by such act they were likely to cause his death. Of course, what they did ad a justification or not and, although falling within the definition of an offence, the act by them is excusable or not are matters which shall be dealt with but only when the truth or otherwise of their plea is tested in accordance with law. It will neither be correct nor proper at the outset to ignore altogether the act of the commission of the offence and not to register a case at all of a homicide at the hands of the police personnel who allegedly fired at Madhusudan Raj Yadav. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter before us and we see good reasons to hold at this stage that on the statement of the same very police personnel who have alleged that Madhusudan Raj Yadav fired at them but caused no injury by the fire-arm, and that they fired at him and as a result, P. W. Madhusudan Raj Yadav got fatal injuries, a case should have been registered and investigated in accordance with law by the competent authorities. We are not impressed, however, by the demand of the petitioner for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry nor are we impressed by the appointment of a Commission by the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh. There can hardly be a proper recording of residence or proper approach to the problem if witnesses and the persons who know about the occurrence are left at their will to report to the Commission and give evidence. What factors will work and deter people who honestly may like to depose, however, are matters of conjecture and we do not wish to venture into it. What factors will work and deter people who honestly may like to depose, however, are matters of conjecture and we do not wish to venture into it. All that we propose to state on this at this stage of proceeding is that any Commission of Inquiry is never a proper and adequate substitute for a fair and Impartial investigation of the offence and a charge brought to the Court by a competent agency so that Court has all information available and the Court is in a position to Judge about the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the prosecution as well as the defence. We do share the concern, however, of the petitioner that it is high time that S. 39 of the Protection of Human Rights Act is invoked in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as steps are taken for appointment of a State Commission so that the people may have some forum where they can go with their reports and grievances of violation of Human Rights as defined under the said Act and there is some mechanism of redressal which is independent and fair operating in the State. Before, however, Sessions Judges are empowered to act as Human Rights Courts and before however, other steps are taken to introduce in the State an independent system for the protection of Human Rights, the normal law must take its course and if nothing else is possible to do, a case is registered and investigated by an independent and impartial agency. 12. The learned Advocate General has urged and rather strenuously that when the lives of the many innocent people are at the mercy of the outlaws who have chosen to give them some respectable names like the out fit of which Madhusudan Raj Yadav was the General Secretary, and the police of the State is involved and is serious about extending protection to the innocent victims from their atrocities, if the Court will direct for investigation of the case concerning Madhusudan Raj Yadav to an outside agency, the State police will have a feeling of demoralisation and shall have apprehensions that even though they act in accordance with law and for the protection of the law-abiding people, they have to face prosecutions of being accused in cases for finding out the truth or otherwise of their acts and commissions in connection with the alleged occurrences. We, however, do not see how a law abiding and law enforcing agency shall even have any apprehensions that a fair and impartial investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of any statement by any one of them shall, in any way, cause any prejudice to them or shall bring to their fair name any cloud. No person in authority who discharges his duties honestly and fairly should ever have any apprehension in placing all that is true about his activities before any other authority. A person, who acts fairly and honestly, can have no fear of being indicated by another fair and honest authority. We have no reason to call the State police unfair or dishonest. But we have good reasons to order that the case of assault by the police personnel upon Madhusudan Raj Yadav should be registered and investigated by some independent agency and not by any person connected with the Andhra Pradesh Police. The main reason for our taking this view is the way the counter-affidavit has been filed to justify why a case has not been registered and why the police party which accomplished its task by arresting Lingamurthy decided to lie in wait to arrest Madhusudan Raj Yadav. It is a fit case, in our opinion, in which a direction be issued to the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh to give sanction and accordingly entrust the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation and direction is issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation through the Central Government i. e. , Union of India represented through the concerned Secretary in the Ministry of Home for registering and investigating the case of the alleged assault resulting in the death of Madhusudan Raj Yadav. The Director General of the Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to appoint a team of officers, if necessary, to investigate the case. The State Government and the Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, are directed to fully cooperate with the investigation. We order accordingly. " ( 8 ) AS regards whether directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission which directions are required to be scrupulously followed by the State have been followed or not, no affidavit affirmed to has been filed by the State. We order accordingly. " ( 8 ) AS regards whether directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission which directions are required to be scrupulously followed by the State have been followed or not, no affidavit affirmed to has been filed by the State. In any event, the Court cannot, repose any faith on such magistrates who cannot complete an enquiry in such a sensitive matter for more than two and half years, particularly having regard to the fact that the incident occurred in 1998. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING all pros and cons of the case and keeping in view the fact that the right to life of any person whether he belongs to any particular group must be held to be sacrosanct, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case whether the matter should be referred to the National Human Rights Commission for conducting an independent enquiry. We, therefore, refer the matter to the National Human Rights Commission and request it to hold a detailed enquiry in the matter and send its report to the State for appropriate action. ( 10 ) THE writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions without any order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.