JUDGMENT : 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner namely Shri. Deepak Jadhav died in the police custody on 4th August 2015. The provisions of Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would reveal that where any person either dies or disappears, while he is in custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court, an inquiry is required to be conducted by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. The learned APP states that in the present matter an inquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate. 2. When the law specifically requires an inquiry to be conducted either by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed, it is difficult to appreciate as to why the police authorities got the inquiry conducted through the Executive Magistrate. 3. Learned APP states that the deceased was never arrested by the police, but he was brought to the police station by the members of one society and after inquiry he was left. It is stated that subsequently the deceased himself came to the police station, entered into the change room of the police officers and committed suicide by hanging himself. The version given by the learned APP at least prima facie is difficult to digest. Apart from that, it is a well settled principle of law that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. When the Act is amended in 2005 and it specifically provides for an inquiry to be conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the police officer, who had got the inquiry conducted through the Executive Magistrate, has done it either in total ignorance of law or it has been done with some other purpose. 4. Whenever a citizen does something contrary to the law, the first argument advanced by the State is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. We fail to understand, as to how the police officer can act totally contrary to the statutory provision. 5. 4. Whenever a citizen does something contrary to the law, the first argument advanced by the State is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. We fail to understand, as to how the police officer can act totally contrary to the statutory provision. 5. We therefore, direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to cause an inquiry to be conducted into the allegation made by the petitioner through an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. We make it clear that the inquiry has to be conducted in an impartial manner. If we find that any attempt is made to save certain persons in the uniform, then we will be constrained to take a serious view of the matter. A preliminary report to be submitted in this Court within four weeks from today. The averments in the petition should form a basis for conducting an inquiry as directed herein above. 6. Stand over to 26th February 2018.