ORDER :- The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to him for the death of his son in the 4th resporident-Pedda Paparru Police Station, Ananthapur District on 24.9.2002 and also to direct the CBCID to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the concerned police officials who are responsible for the death of his son. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr. B. Anil Kumar Reddy, aged about 21 years is his only son. While so, two police constables from the 4th respondent police station visited his house at Chinna Yekkaluru Village of Peddapaparru Mandal, Ananthapur District continuously on 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th September, 2002 and enquired about his son, without disclosing the reason as to why his son was to be enquired. It is stated that on 23.9.2002 two police constables visited his house and when his wife asked them about the reason of - their visit, the said two constables abused, his wife in filthy language, and therefore, the petitioner himself visited the 4th respondent police station on 23.9.2002 as to know why the police regularly visiting his house, but no reason was given by the police, and in turn, it is stated that the police insisted him to produce his wife and his son before the police station on 24.9.2002, and threatened that if he failed to produce them he has to face serious consequences. Accordingly, on 24.9.2002 the petitioner, his wife and his son went to the police station, where the Sub Inspector of Police is said to have abused the wife of the petitioner and also his son and after some time, the police asked the petitioner and his wife to leave the police station, leaving the son of the petitioner in the police station, for which the petitioner refused. But the police sent away the petitioner and his wife keeping the son of the petitioner by name Anil Kumar Reddy in the police station. 3. It is stated that the petitioner returned back to the police station in between 2 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on 24.9.2002 and found that his son was lying on the ground struggling with some pain and he is not in a position to speak out the reason for his pain. 3. It is stated that the petitioner returned back to the police station in between 2 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on 24.9.2002 and found that his son was lying on the ground struggling with some pain and he is not in a position to speak out the reason for his pain. The petitioner enquired the persons present in the police station, and he came to know that the police beat his son and poured some liquid in the mouth of his son and thereafter the police personnel obtained some anti-poison liquid from the neighbouring pesticide shop owner and poured the said liquid in the mouth of the petitioner son. Thereafter, called the Doctor and the petitioner's son was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipathri, where he was declared as dead. Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tadipathri against the police personnel of Pedapaparru Police station, but without taking any action on the said complaint, the police registered a case in respect of death of his son as suicidal death in Cr.No.56/2002. 4. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner along with his wife and son went to the police station, the police have taken his son into their custody and ill-treated him and poured poison into his mouth and thereafter administered anti-poison liquid and caused death of his son, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. A counter has been filed denying all the said allegations, but stated that a case in Cr. No.55/2002 was registered on the file of the 4th respondent police station for the offence under Section 379 of IPC on 21.9.2002. It is stated that the deceased Mr. Anil Kumar Reddy was a suspect in the said crime and accordingly, the Sub-Inspector of Police sent police constables to the house of the petitioner on 23.9.2002 and they have visited and enquired about the son of the petitioner. It is stated that the police did not visit the house of the petitioner on 21st 22nd and 23rd of September, 2002, but they have visited only on 23.9.2002, and at that time the petitioner's wife abused the police constables in filthy language and therefore, the police constables Nos. It is stated that the police did not visit the house of the petitioner on 21st 22nd and 23rd of September, 2002, but they have visited only on 23.9.2002, and at that time the petitioner's wife abused the police constables in filthy language and therefore, the police constables Nos. 1726 and 2084 gave a special report in the police station against the wife of the petitioner for abusing them in filthy language. 6. It is stated that on 24.9.2002 alone the petitioner, his wife and son visited the police station, but not earlier to the said date. After enquiring into the matter for abusing the police by the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner and his wife asked to go home leaving the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.55/2002. The allegation that the police themselves abused the wife of the petitioner and his son is denied. It is stated that the petitioner's son while he was in the police station, on 24.9.2002 he himself went out for natural call at about 1.30 p.m. and returned back to the police station at 2 p.m. After returning to the police station within minutes the son of the petitioner was troubling with some pain, and immediately the police attended him and enquired about the said pain, thereupon they were told that he was taken poison i.e., pesticide. Immediately the police called the neighbouring Pesticides shop owner and on his advise the police have given first aid to the son of the petitioner. 7. The allegations that the police poured some poison in the mouth of the petitioner's son and thereafter they have brought anti-pesticides solution and poured the same in the mouth of the son of the petitioner are denied. It is stated that they have administered anti-pesticides solution but not pesticides. It is stated that the petitioner's son was given treatment and was shifted to the Government Hospital where he was declared as dead. It is further stated that while the petitioner's son was being shifted to the Government Hospital, a bottle was fallen from his pocket, police collected the said bottle and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. It is stated that a case was registered in Cr.No.56/2002 under Section 176 Cr.P.C. and the investigation was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle. It is stated that a case was registered in Cr.No.56/2002 under Section 176 Cr.P.C. and the investigation was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle. Thus, it is the case of the police that the 4th respondent has not administered any poison in the mouth of the petitioner's son, but the son of the petitioner himself consumed poison and died. It is stated that the investigation is pending in Cr.No.56/2002 and in fact, the District Collector, Ananthapur has ordered magisterial enquiry vide proceedings in MCl/1467/2002, dated 25.9.2002 appointing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur as Enquiry Officer and enquiry is pending, and therefore, the question of entrusting the investigation to CBCIDdoes not arise. 8. Heard on either side and perused the material available on record. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. As per the admitted facts, the petitioner, his wife and son all of them went to the police station in the morning on 24.9.2002 and after enquiry about the scolding by the wife of the petitioner to police constables when they visited their house on 23.9.2002, the petitioner and his wife were asked to go to their home while leaving their son in the police station. Thus, admittedly, a case in Cr.No.55/2002 was registered against the son of the petitioner on 21.9.2002 by the Station House Officer of the 4th respondent police station and the said crime was registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not taken to the police custody. 10. When a person is involved in a cognizable and non-bailable offence, unless the interrogation is completed, the police cannot release him. Whenever a person is arrested, he shall be produced before the Court within 24 hours and if the said person is required for investigation, the police can ask for custodial interrogation. In the instant case, even before the person was produced before the Court, it is admitted that the son of the petitioner died because of consuming pesticides. Whenever a person is arrested, he shall be produced before the Court within 24 hours and if the said person is required for investigation, the police can ask for custodial interrogation. In the instant case, even before the person was produced before the Court, it is admitted that the son of the petitioner died because of consuming pesticides. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said allegations whether the petitioner's son himself went to the neighbouring Pesticides shop and consumed pesticides or whether the concerned police administered some poison in the mouth of the petitioner and thereafter administered anti-poison solution as all these matters are to be investigated either in the magisterial enquiry pending or during the course of investigation in the pending Cr.No.56/2002. 11. It is pertinent to note that the present case was also enquired by the Stat~ Human Rights Committee for violation of human rights in H.R.C.No.2/2002 and by order dated 12.5.2003 recorded a finding that the police did not follow the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the pending Cr.No.55/2002 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC of Peddapappur Police Station and thereby violated the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of WB., 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 248 (SC) = (1997) 1 SCC 416 . The deceased Mr. Anil Kumar Reddy, accused in Cr.No.55/2002 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC of 4th respondent police station, died in the police custody on 24.9.2002 due to "Carbo Sulphon" insecticide poison. Therefore serious lapses and gross negligence on the part of the police, particularly the Sub Inspector of Police of the 4th respondent police station, resulting in the death of the deceased due to "Carbo Sulphon" insecticide poison. Accordingly, the State Human Rights Committee, A.P. directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and his wife who were parents of the deceased Mr. Anil Kumar Reddy, to be recovered from the Sub Inspector of Police, namely D. Mahboob Basha and also to take necessary action against him for his negligence resulting in the custodial death of Mr. Anil Kumar Reddy, son of the petitioner. 12. Anil Kumar Reddy, to be recovered from the Sub Inspector of Police, namely D. Mahboob Basha and also to take necessary action against him for his negligence resulting in the custodial death of Mr. Anil Kumar Reddy, son of the petitioner. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the State Human Rights Committee is nominal and meager, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs as the deceased is only son of the petitioner, who was aged about 21 years and died in the police custody for the serious lapses and gross negligence on the part of the 4th respondent, and as admittedly they have violated the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K Basu v. State of WB. (supra). 13. In view of the aforesaid findings of the State Human Rights Committee and in view of the aforesaid facts as narrated above, admittedly, the son of the petitioner was died in the police station while he was under interrogation in connection with a cognizable offence in Cr. No.55/2002. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the State is responsible vicariously for the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer. 14. Having regard to the facts of the case, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) is awarded in addition to the award passed by the State Human Rights Committee, towards compensation, payable by the State on account of the death of son of the petitioner in the 4th respondent police station in connection with Cr.No.55/2002. The direction to pay compensation shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to claim compensation in private law proceedings, if he so entitled in law, against those found responsible for the death of his son. 15. Insofar as direction seeking to entrust the matter to CBCID is concerned, there cannot be any justification to investigate the crime by the same police station where the self-same police station is responsible for the death of the son of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to entrust the investigation into Cr.No.56/2002 to any other police officer with the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to entrust the investigation into Cr.No.56/2002 to any other police officer with the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The 1st respondent is also further directed to see for expeditious disposal of the magisterial enquiry pending against the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Sri D. Mahboob Basha, as ordered by the District Collector, Ananthapur vide proceedings No.MClI1467/2002, dated 25.9.2002. 16. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.