B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since the relief prayed for therein is one and the same. The parties in both the writ petitions are common. W. P. No. 19666 of 1999 is taken on file on the strength of a letter addressed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 3785 of 2000. Thereafter, the very same individual filed w. P. No. 3785 of 2000. ( 2 ) IN both the writ petitions, the petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in torturing the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of india. The petitioner accordingly prays for grant of appropriate consequential directions to the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay him an amount of Rs. 6,00,000. 00 towards compensation for violation of his fundamental rights and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and to further direct the Government of Andhra pradesh to get appropriate criminal cases registered against the police personnel responsible for his torture and for their trial in accordance with law. ( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of any relief as such, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is one Ketha Venkata swamy @ Musalayya. It is his case that on 8-8-1999 at about 11. 00 a. m while he was in his house, respondents 1 to 3 and 6 along with some other police constables came to his house, caught hold of his banian and forcibly pulled him out of his house. All of them took him to the place where their scooters were parked away from his house by beating and kicking him, shouting at him as to how dare he surrendered himself before the Court when they were in look out for him. Later, he was taken to II Town police Station, Rajahmundry. In the police station, he was tortured by respondents 1 and 2 and they were joined by respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. He was beaten with lathis all over his body resulting in multiple injuries. Later, he was taken to II Town police Station, Rajahmundry. In the police station, he was tortured by respondents 1 and 2 and they were joined by respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. He was beaten with lathis all over his body resulting in multiple injuries. This torture continued for roughly about four hours. Thereafter, he was taken to a private hospital of one Dr. K. S. Chalam (respondent No. 12) on 11-8-1999 and got him treated by the said doctor. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, respondents 1 and 2 came to the said hospital and shifted him to a lodge owned by respondent No. 11 and he was confined in a room upto 13-8-1999. After coming to know about the incident, his family members came to the lodge and shifted him to the Government headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry. His statement was recorded by the Police, outpost at the hospital. The III Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, rajahmundry recorded his "dying declaration". ( 6 ) NO reasons were disclosed as to for what reason he was taken to the police station. But during the course of the version among the respondents themselves, the petitioner gathered that the police personnel were very much angry and upset as he surrendered himself before the II Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, rajahmundry on 15-7-1999 in connection with Crime No. 107 of 1999 registered against him on the file of the II Town Police station, Rajahmundry instead of surrendering himself before the police. ( 7 ) IT is also his case that his repeated representations to the higher authorities did not yield any result. ( 8 ) THIS Court having taken up both the writ petitions together for hearing passed order dated 28-3-2000 directing the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of the writ affidavits and other material papers to the Human rights Court of East Godavari District for making an appropriate enquiry into the matter. The enquiry was directed to be held in accordance with the provisions of the human Rights Protection Act, 1993 and the rules made thereunder and to take further appropriate action as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The enquiry was directed to be held in accordance with the provisions of the human Rights Protection Act, 1993 and the rules made thereunder and to take further appropriate action as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ( 9 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-I additional District and Sessions Judge (Human Rights Court) by his order dated 11-6-2001 submitted a detailed report to this court for its consideration and for necessary action. This Court. accordingly had taken up the matter for further hearing. The copies of the report submitted by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate together with other material available on record has been supplied to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and the learned government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh and other official respondents against whom there are no specific allegations as such made by the petitioner. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 7 and 10 filed detailed objections to the report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Before we consider the objections so preferred, we may have to notice in brief the report of the Chief judicial Magistrate and the conclusions reached by him. ( 11 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate pursuant to the directions of this Court made an elaborate and fullfledged enquiry by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties. The writ petitioner himself was examined as P. W. 1. Nine other witnesses on his behalf including two private medical practitioners and the medical Superintendent, Government headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry were also examined. Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. R. W. I was examined and Exs. R-1to R-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents. The learned additional Public Prosecutor and one mr. M. Subba Rao, advocate assisted the human Rights Court and respondents 1 to 10 were represented by their advocate. It was a full-fledged trial by the learned Judge of the Human Rights Court. ( 12 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence available on record found that the evidence of P. W. I is amply corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. It was a full-fledged trial by the learned Judge of the Human Rights Court. ( 12 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence available on record found that the evidence of P. W. I is amply corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. The learned Chief judicial Magistrate relied upon the evidence of P. W. 4 who is none other than the Civil assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, tuni who treated the writ petitioner and found the following injuries: (1) A contusion defused over the left upper arm, extending on the lateral and posterior aspect 10" x 5" bluish, black in colour, tenderness present, lenier abrasion 3" x " over the left upper arm, lateral aspect, another abrasion 2" x " over the left upper arm; another abrasion 2" x " over the left upper arm, scab form. (2) Contusion defused over the left fore-arm back 6" x 4" bluish, black in colour, tenderness present. (3) Complaints of pain over the dorsum of the left hand. No external injuries seen. (4) Defused contusion over the lateral aspect of the right upper arm 8" x 3" bluish, black in colour, tenderness present. (5) Contusion defused on the back of the right forearm 6" x 3" abrasion over the left elbow on the lateral aspect with scab formed 1" x 1" size. (6) Abrasion over the right scapula, scab form 3" x 1" size. (7) Defused contusion on the left lower back of chest 6" x 4" bluish, black in colour, tenderness present. (8) Defused contusion over the scoral area 6" x 6" bluish, black in colour, tenderness present. (9) Defused contusion of the left foot extending on to the Lower 1/3rd of the leg with sebsis including ankle joint; multiple blubs present on the dorsum of the foot, (10) Defused contusion of right foot including the ankle; joint black in colour, tenderness present. (11) Abrasion over the right glutiel region 3" x 1" 2" x 1 scab form. (12) Defused contusion over the right glutiel region, black in colour, tenderness present. (13) Defused contusion over the left glutiel region, tenderness present, black in colour. (11) Abrasion over the right glutiel region 3" x 1" 2" x 1 scab form. (12) Defused contusion over the right glutiel region, black in colour, tenderness present. (13) Defused contusion over the left glutiel region, tenderness present, black in colour. ( 13 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also referred to the evidence of P. W. 6 the medical Superintendent, Government headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry in support of the conclusion that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on13-8-1999 at about 2. 05 p. m. with multiple injuries and the injuries mentioned in Ex. P-11 were soft tissue injuries. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 23-8-1999. ( 14 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having appreciated the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the evidence of P. W. I coupled with medical evidence of P. Ws. 4,6 and 7 and Exs. P-4 and p-5 O. P. chits and Exs. P-6, P-7 and P-10 to p-13 proved that the petitioner sustained injuries during the period from 8-8-1999 to 12-8-1999. The learned Chief Judicial magistrate rejected the plea of alibi taken by respondents 1 to 6 and 10. ( 15 ) IN conclusion, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate found that respondents 1 to 3 and 6 forcibly trespassed into the house of the writ petitioner and assaulted him and dragged him from the house, abusing him in filthy language and took him away to the police station forcibly without informing him the purpose and thereafter wrongfully detained him in the police station and tortured him in the said police station. Thereafter put him in the lodge. The learned chief Judicial Magistrate held that the said acts of respondents 1 to 7 and 10 resulted in infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed and the human rights of the writ petitioner. There is a categorical finding by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the case on hand is a clear case of custodial torture and violation of human rights. ( 16 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate further found that there is no independent evidence available on record in order to make any assessment as to the loss of income and actual earning of the writ petitioner on account of the injuries sustained by him due to the torture in the hands of respondents 1 to 7 and 10. ( 16 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate further found that there is no independent evidence available on record in order to make any assessment as to the loss of income and actual earning of the writ petitioner on account of the injuries sustained by him due to the torture in the hands of respondents 1 to 7 and 10. The leamed Chief Judicial Magistrate further found that there is no evidence on record to show that the writ petitioner sustained any disability due to the injuries received by him at the hands of the said respondents. The chief Judicial Magistrate also found that there is no evidence of any particular amount being spent by the writ petitioner towards his medical expenses. ( 17 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the superintendent of Police, East Godavari, kakinada in W. P. No. 19666 of 1999 and marked the same as Ex. P-16. In the said counter-affidavit, the Superintendent of police stated that the petitioner was seen carrying arrack near Godavari river by the sub-Divisional Party Head Constable and constable and on seeing them the writ petitioner escaped from the scene. While he was escaping from being caught by the police, he ran through thorny bushes and had a fall on the heap of sticks etc. , due to which the writ petitioner received injuries. This is the sum and substance of the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed that no crime was registered against the writ petitioner for the alleged possession of illicit arrack and escaping from the hands of the police. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the theory put forward by the superintendent that the injuries were self inflicted. There has been no such suggestion made to P. Ws. 4, 6 and 7 the doctors who treated the writ petitioner. ( 18 ) IN conclusion, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate observed that the human Rights Court cannot take cognizance of any case as it does not possess the original jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter. It is under those circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate submitted a report to this Court. It is under those circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate submitted a report to this Court. ( 19 ) IN the memorandum of objections, it is stated that the learned Chief Judicial magistrate has given inconsistent findings in paragraphs 34 and 36 of the report. In para 34 of the report, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate observed that there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that respondents 1 to 7 and 10 tortured the petitioner in II Town Police Station and caused injuries and whereas in paragraph 36 of the report, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate observed that respondents 1 to 3 and 6 forcibly trespassed into the house of p. W. I and assaulted him and detained in the police station and tortured him resulting in injuries. ( 20 ) IT is also stated in the Memo of objections that the evidence of P. W. I is totallv untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon. P. W. I admitted in his cross-examination that he knows respondents 1 to 7 by their names but in the report given by him on 13-8-1999 under Ex. P-1 he did not mention the names of respondents 3 to 10. It is also highlighted that in Ex. P-8 recorded by the learned Magistrate on 13-8-1999, the petitioner has not given the names of police personnel who came to his house and took him to the police station on 8-8-1999. It is contended that the names of respondents 5, 8, 9 and 10 were introduced for the first time by the petitioner in W. P. No. 3785 of 2000. ( 21 ) IT is contended that the 7th respondent was deputed to Sircilla to execute a bailable warrant against the then inspector of Police, Sircilla in Crime No. 109 of 1994 as is evident from the general diary and the passport Ex. R-4. ( 22 ) IT is the case of respondents 1 to 10 that the petitioner is a notorious bootlegger involved in several criminal cases. He was also involved in the offences punishable under the Penal Code. His evidence which is not consistent cannot be believed and the findings recorded by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate on such evidence are totally unsustainable. The petitioner obviously implicated all the police personnel belonging to II Town Police station within which jurisdiction he is carrying on his illicit liquor business. His evidence which is not consistent cannot be believed and the findings recorded by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate on such evidence are totally unsustainable. The petitioner obviously implicated all the police personnel belonging to II Town Police station within which jurisdiction he is carrying on his illicit liquor business. The petitioner indulged in mud slinging and falsely implicated the respondents only to blackmail and prevent the police from discharging their legitimate duties. ( 23 ) WE may at once make it clear that we are not impressed by the objections raised by the respondents as against the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate. The report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not a judgment rendered by any Court of competent criminal jurisdiction and the proceedings on hand before us cannot be converted into appellate proceedings as against the report submitted by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate. We are not hearing any appeal as such against the report submitted by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate. This Court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to make an enquiry for taking further appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, the report submitted by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate cannot be subjected to same intense analysis and critical evaluation as we do in hearing the criminal appeals preferred against the judgments rendered by the Courts of a competent jurisdiction. We cannot go into the minor inconsistencies, if any, in the report submitted by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate. We restrain ourselves from reading the evidence available on record in order to appreciate the same. We have to go by the broad probabilities and accordingly, evaluate the conclusions reached by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate. ( 24 ) IN our considered opinion, the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate does not reveal any major inconsistencies. Even going by the so called inconsistencies in the report, the involvement of respondents 1 to 3 in dragging the petitioner from out of his house and taking him to the police station and torturing him from house is conclusively established. We do not find any reason or justification to differ with the conclusion reached by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate not to accept the plea of alibi set up by some of the respondents. We do not find any reason or justification to differ with the conclusion reached by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate not to accept the plea of alibi set up by some of the respondents. The sequence of events commencing right from 8-8-1999 to 12-8-1999 would undoubtedly establish that the petitioner has been taken away from his house and subjected to torture thereby resulting in infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the human rights. ( 25 ) IT is true the petitioner may have made an attempt to give an exaggerated version of the incident and particularly in relation to the injuries sustained by him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate himself was not impressed by such attempts made by the petitioner. It is under those circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate found that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were simple in nature and such injuries have not resulted in causing any permanent disability as such to the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial magistrate also noticed that there is no evidence available on record to record any finding about the loss of income of the petitioner. We do not find any reason to differ with the conclusions reached by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 26 ) WE are surprised to notice some of the contentions pressed into service by the respondents-police personnel in their defence. It is being indirectly suggested that the petitioner being a notorious bootlegger deserves whatever treatment he has received in the hands of the police. This attitude of the police personnel is fraught with serious consequences. They have no right in law to torture any individual on any ground whatsoever. The accusations against an individual by themselves do not constitute a ground for illegal detention and torture by the police. It is very well settled and needs no reiteration in our hands that the jurisdiction of the police and investigating agencies has its own limitations. Their duty is to investigate and place its conclusions before the Court of a competent jurisdiction and bring the culprits to trial. The police personnel cannot adorn the role of an adjudicating body. Nor do they have any right to award or inflict any punishment by themselves. They cannot be allowed to break the laws even while dealing with lawbreakers. Their duty is to investigate and place its conclusions before the Court of a competent jurisdiction and bring the culprits to trial. The police personnel cannot adorn the role of an adjudicating body. Nor do they have any right to award or inflict any punishment by themselves. They cannot be allowed to break the laws even while dealing with lawbreakers. What is more reprehensible is the move to justify and legitimise the torture than torture itself. ( 27 ) IT has been repeatedly held by the higher courts that the rights inherent in article 21 of the Constitution of India require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. Court cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. "if the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? these questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic. no . The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law" ( 28 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? ( 29 ) IT is not necessary for us to fix the precise responsibility upon any one of the respondents 1 to 7 and 10. There appears to be any amount of evidence against the two police constables (respondents 1 and 2) and the Head constable (respondent No. 3) of their indulging in torture and illegal detention of the petitioner. They are but minions in the lower rungs of the police ladder. The responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. They are but minions in the lower rungs of the police ladder. The responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is not necessary for us to say precisely where and with whom the responsibility lies. The same be enquired into by the State itself. But that cannot be a ground or reason not to award any compensation whatsoever to the petitioner. ( 30 ) IT is very well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequent upon the deprivation of human rights. The instant case is illustrative of such cases. It is true that Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of the rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of court, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit constituted in a court of competent jurisdiction. But in appropriate cases, this Court is not precluded from awarding compensation whenever the constitutional rights of a citizen are violated with impunity. In a given case even the court may award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise. The supreme Court awarded such monetary compensation in case of infringement of article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty ( 31 ) IN Nilabati Behera v. State oforissa, the supreme Court held that a claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the constitution is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. ( 32 ) IN D. K. Basil s case (supra), the supreme Court observed that the Court where the infringement of fundamental right is established, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. ( 32 ) IN D. K. Basil s case (supra), the supreme Court observed that the Court where the infringement of fundamental right is established, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief, not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to the breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. Such compensation is required to be granted to repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury notwithstanding the punitive provisions contained in the Indian Penal Code which seek to punish violation of right to life. Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable under the Indian penal Code. All such statutory provisions are held to be inadequate to repair the wrong done to a citizen by the State of not protecting the fundamental right. ( 33 ) THE Supreme Court in Rudal Sah s case (supra), Sebastian M. Homgray v. Union of India, Bhim Singh s case (supra), Saheli, a Women s Resources Centre v. Commr. of police, Delhi Police Headquarters and State of maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil directed the respective State Governments to pay the compensation to the victims. ( 34 ) IN the instant case, we have no doubt whatsoever that the respondents-police personnel are jointly and severally responsible for the torture of the petitioner in the police station resulting in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner needs to be compensated. There are justifiable reasons for awarding monetary compensation for contravention of the petitioner s fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioner s involvement in criminal cases and allegations levelled against him that he is a bootlegger are totally immaterial and the same cannot constitute any defence whatsoever for violating the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. ( 35 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we direct the respondent-Government of andhra Pradesh represented by his principal Secretary of Home to pay a sum of rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the petitioner and further sum of rs. 2,500/- as costs to be paid to the Andhra. Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. ( 35 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we direct the respondent-Government of andhra Pradesh represented by his principal Secretary of Home to pay a sum of rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the petitioner and further sum of rs. 2,500/- as costs to be paid to the Andhra. Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. ( 36 ) WE also direct the Government of andhra Pradesh to take necessary and further action in this behalf to ascertain and fix the responsibility of individual officers responsible for the torture of the petitioner, and also take all available appropriate action against each one of them, including their prosecution for the offence committed thereby. We clarify that it shall be open for the State to realise the amounts awarded, from such persons who are responsible for the torture of the writ petitioner. ( 37 ) THIS order shall not preclude the petitioner from proceeding further and to seek appropriate damages from the persons responsible for the torture inflicted and the illegal confinement, etc. ( 38 ) THE amounts so directed shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in the writ petitioner s name for a period of three years during which he would receive only the interest payable thereon. The principle amount being payable to the petitioner on expiry of the term. ( 39 ) BEFORE we part with the case we clarify that the observations, if any, made in this order shall have no bearing upon the prosecution to be launched and the remedy, if any, to be availed by the petitioner seeking damages. The observations made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his report also shall have no bearing upon the prosecution to be launched. ( 40 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly allowed.