JUDGMENT : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. 1. Subject matter of both the writ petitions being inter-related, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We have heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Central Government counsel (CGC). 3. WP(C) No.6283/2010 has been filed by Parul Mazumder Laskar alleging therein that her husband Ikbal Hussain Laskar @ Alta was forcibly taken away by army personnel belonging to No. 117/33 Artillery Field Regiment stationed at Manipur Bagan bordering the State of Manipur in the district of Hailakandi (Assam) on 09.10.2010 at around 3.30 am. It has been alleged that army personnel from the said regiment came to the residence of the petitioner on that day at around the same time and forcibly entered into her dwelling house. They took away her husband in her presence and in front of her 3 daughters. She has alleged beating and torture of her husband by the army personnel. Later on petitioner could learn that her husband was taken away by the army personnel to the army camp located at Manipur Bagan where he was tortured leading to his death. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the dead body of her deceased husband was thereafter brought to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital. Petitioner lodged an FIR at about 3.30 pm on 09.10.2010 before the Algapur Police Station on the basis of which Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010 was registered under section 365/302 of the IPC. On the allegation that police did not take any action, petitioner lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi on 13.10.2010. Subsequently, the said complaint was merged with the police case already registered by the Algapur Police. 4. It is in such circumstances that petitioner approached this court seeking compensation for the death of her husband and also for prosecution of the erring army personnel. 5. Notice in this case was issued as far back as on 26.11.2010. 6. Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi in his affidavit filed on 03.01.2011 stated that Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010 was being investigated. It is stated that relatives of the victim along with retired Judge A. Borlaskar had approached the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi immediately on the date of the incident. Notice in this case was issued as far back as on 26.11.2010. 6. Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi in his affidavit filed on 03.01.2011 stated that Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010 was being investigated. It is stated that relatives of the victim along with retired Judge A. Borlaskar had approached the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi immediately on the date of the incident. Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi stated that till such time he was not aware of the incident since no information was given to him by the army authorities. He then contacted the army authorities over phone whereafter Major Sandip of 117/33 Field Regiment informed him that one Ikbal Hussain Laskar was being interrogated by the army personnel in connection with his involvement in procurement and circulation of fake Indian currency notes. He further stated that Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi had granted Rs. 50,000/- to the family of the deceased on 10.10.2010 as ex-gratia payment. Army personnel also lodged a written complaint before the Algapur Police Station stating that they had conducted search operation at the residence of the deceased and they recovered fake Indian currency notes worth Rs. 2,500/-. While the deceased Ikbal Hussain Laskar was being taken to another place following disclosure made by him during his interrogation, he reported uneasiness whereafter he was taken to the Manipur PHC for treatment from where he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Hailakandi and thereafter to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital. Based on the Army complaint Algapur P.S. Case No.244/2010 was registered under section 489(B)/489(C) of the IPC. Details of investigation in respect of Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010 have also been mentioned in the said affidavit. It was finally stated that investigation of the case was in the final stage and was pending for examination of the concerned army personnel. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a common affidavit. Allegation of torture inflicted upon the deceased has been specifically denied. It is stated that State of Assam including the district of Hailakandi was declared as disturbed area vide notification dated 02.05.2003 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which was extended vide subsequent notification dated 04.11.2009. As a result, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was in operation. Army personnel acted on specific information regarding anti-national activities including circulation of fake Indian currency notes. The deceased was a well-known fake currency racketeer and an anti-national element. As a result, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was in operation. Army personnel acted on specific information regarding anti-national activities including circulation of fake Indian currency notes. The deceased was a well-known fake currency racketeer and an anti-national element. Acting on intelligence inputs that deceased was in possession of fake Indian currency notes worth more than Rs. 3,00,000/- and was about to make a deal, the search operation was carried out. Right from the beginning the deceased did not co-operate with the army authorities and tried to run away. In the process, the deceased had slipped between betel nut trees and it was likely that he might have suffered head injury during one such fall. There was also scuffle between the army personnel guarding the deceased and the deceased as the deceased wanted to flee. The army operation was conducted in the presence of local police personnel. During interrogation the deceased admitted his complicity in the circulation of fake Indian currency notes. When the deceased complained of uneasiness, he was brought to the PHC, Manipur Bagan at 10.00 am whereafter he was referred to S. K. Roy Civil Hospital, Hailakandi at about 11.20 hrs., and finally he was referred to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 8. While this case was pending, one Musstt. Saleha Begum Laskar, mother of the deceased, filed the second writ petition, being WP(C) No.335/2011, seeking identical reliefs. 9. Notice in this case was issued on 11.02.2011. 10. Army authorities, i.e., respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit in this case almost identical to the one filed in the case of Parul Mazumdar Laskar except that in this affidavit claim of the mother that she stayed with the deceased was disputed. It is stated that she was not present in the house of the deceased at the time of search operation. 11. At this stage, we may mention that in the course of hearing on 05.4.2017, Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners informed us that petitioner in WP(C) No.335/2011 Musstt. Saleha Begum Laskar had expired on 31.03.2017. Therefore, an order was passed on 05.04.2017 stating that since wife of the deceased is the petitioner in WP(C) No.6283/2010, which was filed earlier in point of time and where relief claimed is identical, the said writ petition would now proceed for final disposal. Saleha Begum Laskar had expired on 31.03.2017. Therefore, an order was passed on 05.04.2017 stating that since wife of the deceased is the petitioner in WP(C) No.6283/2010, which was filed earlier in point of time and where relief claimed is identical, the said writ petition would now proceed for final disposal. Consequently, WP(C) No.335/2011 would stand closed following the death of the petitioner Mustt. Saleha Begum Laskar and this judgment would now be confined to the petitioner of WP(C) No.6283/2010. 12. Earlier on 26.09.2012, the court took the view that an enquiry into the alleged incident ought to be made by the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi to consider the relief claimed. It was ordered accordingly. District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi was directed to examine the witnesses of both the sides and thereafter to submit his final report. 13. It is seen that District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi had conducted enquiry in terms of the aforesaid order of this court and thereafter had submitted report dated 05.03.2013. In his report District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi recorded the finding that involvement of the army personnel in the alleged incident and death of the deceased in the said incident was established and death of the deceased had occurred while he was in the company of the army personnel. 14. It is seen that respondents had filed objection to the aforesaid report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. 15. On 08.11.2013, the court perused the contents of the enquiry report and took the view that it would not be safe to concur with the conclusion that the deceased was assaulted by army personnel which led to his death. Consequently, vide order dated 08.11.2013, the enquiry report dated 05.03.2013 was set aside and a fresh enquiry was directed to be conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi after giving fair opportunity to the contesting respondents. 16. Thereafter, District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi conducted the fresh enquiry as directed by the court and submitted his report dated 20.02.2017. As per this report, District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi opined that it was prima facie established that army personnel of Manipur Camp, Hailakandi were involved in the incident of death of the deceased Ikbal Hussain Laskar and that death of the deceased had occurred while he was in the company of army personnel. 17. In the course of hearing on 27.03.2017, Mr. 17. In the course of hearing on 27.03.2017, Mr. M. Phukan, learned CGC appeared for the army authorities and sought for time to file objection to this enquiry report. After due consideration we declined to grant time to the respondents for more than one reason. Firstly, this case is pending before this court since the year 2010 for almost 7 years now. A case of this nature requires expeditious disposal. It is unfortunate that this court could not dispose of this case earlier. It does no good to anyone to allow a case of this nature to languish in the court for years together. Secondly, respondents had already filed their objection to the enquiry report submitted earlier. The second finding or the second enquiry report of the District and Sessions Judge has only confirmed the finding recorded in the previous enquiry. Thirdly, the enquiry conducted by the District and Sessions Judge was not a trial but only in the nature of a fact finding enquiry to enable the writ court to adjudicate the dispute raised before it. To clarify the point, the writ court is not examining the culpability of any individual official or person but only examining the limited issue as to whether the investigation carried out in respect of Algapur P.S. Case No. 243/2010 should be carried out to its logical conclusion or not and having regard to the circumstances in which the deceased had died as to whether petitioner would be entitled to some compensation. It is for this limited purpose that this court had sought for the report of the District and Sessions Judge. Lastly, as would emerge in the succeeding paragraphs of this judgment, enquiry report of the District and Sessions Judge has largely become academic because of the fact that investigation into Algapur P.S. Case No. 243/2010 is complete; chargesheet has not been filed only because of non-receipt of prosecution sanction. Therefore, irrespective of the enquiry report of the District and Sessions Judge, factual foundation for adjudication of this case is firmly established. 18. Having stated the above, we find from the record that on an earlier occasion Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi had submitted a report dated 02.08.2012 before the then Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. P. S. Deka. It was placed before the court which has since been kept as part of the record. 18. Having stated the above, we find from the record that on an earlier occasion Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi had submitted a report dated 02.08.2012 before the then Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. P. S. Deka. It was placed before the court which has since been kept as part of the record. As per this letter, the Superintendent of Police stated that during investigation sufficient evidence were gathered against certain army personnel in connection with Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010. Hence the Investigation Officer was instructed to submit charge sheet against them after obtaining prosecution sanction from the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 19. In the course of hearing on 27.03.2017 this court passed the following order:- "In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual context, question which arises for consideration is entitlement of the petitioners' to compensation under the public law remedy and prosecution of the guilty Army personnel. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that investigation with regard to Algapur Police Station Case No. 243/2010 was completed whereafter prosecution sanction was sought for to prosecute certain Army personnel; however, no such sanction has been granted by the Army authorities." 20. Having regard to the fact situation as above, in the first half today, we requested Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam to apprise the court about the present status of Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010. He has placed before us written instructions received by him from the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi which is extracted herein below:- "(1) Charge sheet into the case is yet to be filed and the case is pending for want of prosecution sanction from Govt. of India. In this regard it may be stated here that Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vide their letter No. 6(6)/2012-D(AG) dated 15.05.2014 informed that the matter of according prosecution sanction would be examined as and when the fresh enquiry report is received. In pursuance of order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati in connection with WP(C) No.335/2011 (Musst. Saleha Begum Laskar v. State of Assam & Others), the District Judge, Hailakandi submitted a fresh enquiry report vide letter No. JHD/V/17/5/528 dated 01.03.2017 to the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati as informed by the Public Prosecutor, Hailakandi dated 17.03.2017. (2) The prosecution sanction against the Army personnel is yet to be received. Saleha Begum Laskar v. State of Assam & Others), the District Judge, Hailakandi submitted a fresh enquiry report vide letter No. JHD/V/17/5/528 dated 01.03.2017 to the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati as informed by the Public Prosecutor, Hailakandi dated 17.03.2017. (2) The prosecution sanction against the Army personnel is yet to be received. In this regard it may be stated here that on completion of investigation of the case and after due scrutiny, a prayer was submitted to the D.G.P., Assam to move the competent authority for obtaining prosecution sanction against the involved Army personnel. Accordingly the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home department was requested by the Addl. DGP (A), Assam vide his letter No. G/VI/05/2001/Pt/143 dated 30.08.2012 to move the Central Govt. to accord prosecution sanction under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. against all the involved Army personnel and to communicate the prosecution sanction to the Assam Police Headquarters for further follow up actions. Later, reminder letter was sent to he Addl. Director General of Police (A), Assam, Guwahati vide this office Memo No.HKD/SR/2012/1358 dated 13.12.2012, HKD/SR/13/1762 dated 28.10.2013 and Memo No.HKD/SR/13/2160 dated 27.12.2013 to move the competent authority for according prosecution sanction against the accused Army personnel in the interest of early disposal of the case but the prosecution sanction is still awaited." 21. From the above, what is discernible is that investigation into the case is complete but charge sheet has not yet been filed for want of prosecution sanction. On the other hand, Ministry of Defence, Government of India vide its letter dated 15.05.2014 had taken the stand that matter of prosecution sanction would be examined as and when fresh enquiry report was received. 22. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the court. 23. As noticed above, scope of the enquiry conducted by the District and Sessions Judge is very limited, only to enable the court to adjudicate this proceeding in a just and fair manner. The issue is what happens to Algapur P.S. Case No. 243/2010. From what has been discussed above, it is now clear that investigation is complete and charge sheet is ready to be filed. It has not been filed because prosecution sanction has not been granted. The issue is what happens to Algapur P.S. Case No. 243/2010. From what has been discussed above, it is now clear that investigation is complete and charge sheet is ready to be filed. It has not been filed because prosecution sanction has not been granted. On the other hand, Ministry of Defence, Government of India has taken the stand that since the High Court had directed fresh enquiry, question of grant of prosecution sanction would be examined after the fresh enquiry report is received. As discussed above, fresh enquiry report has been received. 24. At this juncture we may usefully refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 6 SCC 228 . This was a case of alleged encounter killing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir declared as a disturbed area where the provisions of the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 read with the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act,1958 were in operation enabling the deployment of army. At this stage it may not be necessary to delve into the factual details of that case save and except to observe that Supreme Court had made a comprehensive analysis of the law relating to grant of prosecution sanction to prosecute army personnel charged with committing criminal offence, including the provisions of Sections 125 and 126 of the Army Act and the Constitution Bench decision in Som Datt Datta v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 414 . In the above backdrop, Supreme court held as under:- "95.1 The conjoint reading of the relevant statutory provisions and Rules make it clear that the term "institution" contained in Section 7 of the 1990 Act means taking cognizance of the offence and not mere presentation of the chargesheet by the investigating agency. 95.2 The competent army authority has to exercise his discretion to opt as to whether the trial would be by a Court-Martial or criminal court after filing of the chargesheet and not after the cognizance of the offence is taken by the court. 95.3 Facts of this case require sanction of the Central Government to proceed with the criminal prosecution/trial. 95.4 In case option is made to try the accused by a Court-Martial, sanction of the Central Government is not required. 96. 95.3 Facts of this case require sanction of the Central Government to proceed with the criminal prosecution/trial. 95.4 In case option is made to try the accused by a Court-Martial, sanction of the Central Government is not required. 96. In view of the above, the appeals stand disposed of with the following directions: 96.1. The competent authority in the Army shall take a decision within a period of eight weeks from today as to whether the trial would be by the criminal court or by a Court-Martial and communicate the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned immediately thereafter. 96.2. In case the option is made to try the case by a Court-Martial, the said proceedings would commence immediately and would be concluded strictly in accordance with law expeditiously. 96.3. In case the option is made that the accused would be tried by the criminal court, the CBI shall make an application to the Central Government for grant of sanction within four weeks from the receipt of such option and in case such an application is filed, the Central Government shall take a final decision on the said application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such an application. 96.4. In case sanction is granted by the Central Government, the criminal court shall proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously." 25. Having regard to the above, we are of the opinion that the competent army authority is now required to exercise its discretion as to whether the trial arising out of Algapur P.S. Case No.243/2010 would be conducted by a court martial or by a criminal court. Ordered accordingly. 26. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall inform the competent army authority about this order who shall thereafter take the required decision within a period of 2(two) months from today. If it is decided that the trial would be by court martial, sanction of the Central Government would not be necessary and the army authorities would proceed with the court martial forthwith and complete the same expeditiously by strictly adhering to the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules. 27. If it is decided that the trial would be by court martial, sanction of the Central Government would not be necessary and the army authorities would proceed with the court martial forthwith and complete the same expeditiously by strictly adhering to the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules. 27. However, if the competent army authority takes the decision that the trial should be by a criminal court, such decision should be brought to the notice of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India without delay, at any rate within 4 (four) weeks of the decision, whereafter Ministry of Defence, Government of India shall take necessary decision within 4 (four) weeks thereafter. In case sanction is granted by the Central Government, prosecution shall forthwith file the charge sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, who shall thereafter, commence the criminal proceeding in accordance with law. 28. Having said that, we are also of the view that the surviving petitioner i.e., Parul Mazumder Laskar, wife of the deceased should also be compensated for the death of her husband in the circumstances in which he died. Payment of compensation by the constitutional courts as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights, more particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is well recognized and needs no re-statement. Petitioner is pursuing this litigation for the last 7 years before this court. We are told that as per victim compensation scheme prepared by the Government of Assam under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C., in case of death a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be awarded. Taking the aforesaid amount as a base figure and having regard to the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and the long pendency of the litigation, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner. This would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding under the private law remedy seeking adequate compensation. Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department shall release the aforesaid amount to the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi and the same shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today. 29. This would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding under the private law remedy seeking adequate compensation. Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department shall release the aforesaid amount to the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi and the same shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today. 29. Before parting with the record, we make it clear that compensation paid as above or any observation made in this proceeding shall not be taken into account or used against the accused either in the court martial or in the criminal trial. 30. With the above directions, writ petitions are disposed of.