Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Macha Sambasiva Rao & Ors. vs State Of A.P. on 16 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD249, 1999(2)ALD(CRI)326
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
ORDER
1. This Court passed an order on 13th October, 1998 which is reproduced below :
"A complaint has been registered against the petitioners on 3-4-98. The petitioners seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest also took a plea that the concerned police officers are forcing the first petitioner to have compromise with his father-in-law and pay Rs.50,000/- to him. They are not formally arresting him, but keeping him in custody. Therefore, the concerned Police Officer was asked to file a reply affidavit. The Police Officer concerned filed a counter-affidavit in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him. A reply has also been filed in which it is stated that the petitioner No.1 was kept in custody from 14-7-1998 to 1-8-98.
In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to get the matter inquired into (a) whether the petitioner No.1 was kept in wrongful confinement by the concerned Police Officer from 14-7-98 to 1-8-98; (b) whether the Police Officers tried to coerce the petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- to his father-in-law?
Therefore, the matter is referred to the Prl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, who shall appoint a Magistrate to whom it is convenient to inquire into the matter and submit a report to this Court. The learned Sessions Judge shall direct the concerned Magistrate to complete the inquiry within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the interest of justice, I direct that the petitioners shall not be arrested in FIR Nol3/98 of P.S. Chityal, Warangal district till the report is furnished by the Magistrate. However, the police concerned shall be at liberty to investigate the matter and the petitioners shall be bound to appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required for the purposes of investigation. But, in any case, the petitioners shall not be called for investigation at odd hours.
Let the matter come up again after the report is received."
The order also gives the facts relating to filing of this case, therefore the facts are not repeated. The inquiry was then conducted by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulug who filed his report. This report was perused by the Court and an order was passed on 11th February, 1999. It was directed that a copy of the report be given to C.I of Police Mr. Rajkumar and Police Constable Mr. Narsaiah who had been implicated in the report. They were asked to show cause as to why prosecution against them be not ordered as they kept the petitioners in wrongful confinement. They were further asked to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them as prima facie they had not followed directions of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, . Both of them have filed their replies and I have heard them.
The Magistrate in his report submitted:
"I do not hesitate to come to the conclusion that the petitioners 1 and 4 were kept in wrongful confinement in the Police Station, Chityal from 14-7-98 to 23-7-98 but not upto 1-8-1998."
It had been alleged by the petitioners that they were kept in wrongful confinement from 14-7-98 till 1-8-98, but the Magistrate after conducting inquiry and after taking evidence has reported that petitioners 1 and 4 are kept in wrongful confinement from 14-7-98 to 23-7-98 which makes it about ten days. The Magistrate also found that there was no evidence except statement of P.W. 5 that C.I. had forced petitioner No.1 to pay Rs. 50.000/- to his father-in-law.
2. Mr. P. Narsaiah has submitted in his affidavit that, he was working as Head Constable from 2-8-96 in Chityal Police Station and on 11-7-98 in the morning at 8.00 hours his Station Sub-Inspector Sri B.Ch. Mallalah gave him one passport and Bus warrant to bring and produce the accused in Cr.No. 13/98 under Sections 478-A, 494 IPC. On 12-7-98 he stayed at Kothagudem for night and on 13-7-98 he went to the residence of the accused. The accused Macha Devender was there. His elder brother Sambasiva Rao had gone to work to Vijayawada. The Constable told him that S.I. had asked him to produce the accused in chityal therefore inform his brother to come back. The Constable states that he again stayed for night at Kothagudem Police Station and at evening 5.00 p.m. he went to the house of the accused. He was informed that A2 and A3 were not available in the village. A6 was sick and was in hospital and A7 was pregnant. The constable further states that, he asked them that atleast two of them should come to the Police Station to meet the S.I. On 14-7-98 the Constable went to the house of the accused A1 and A4, then all the three together reached Warangal by train. The Constable states that he permitted the accused to go to see their in laws in Warangal, the Constable himself went to his own house and on 15-7-98 he accompanied by Al and A4 readied Police Station, Chityal and produced them before the S.I. The S.I. told him that they should be produced before C.I. of Police, Chityal Sri Rajkumar. The Constable further states that, on the orders of S.I. he took the accused persons and produced them before C.I. Mr. Rajkumar and then he left for his Police Station. He states that, whatever he had done he had done on the orders of the superiors.
3. Although the C.I. of Police Mr. Rajkumar has denied in his affidavit that he ever ordered arrest of accused 1 and 4 or they were ever in his custody, but the report of the Magistrate, evidence collected by the Magistrate, most particularly the staletnent of Mr. P. Narsaiah in his reply to the show cause notice establish that these persons had been kept in wrongful confinement on the orders of Mr. Rajkumar, C.I. of Police. While reading the reply of the C.I. to the show cause notice one gets an impression that the said Police Officer is not even remorseful for his actions and instead of explaining his conduct he has even tried to play smart even with the Court. The Case Dairy also do not reveal that the petitioners were shown to have been arrested.
4. For these reasons, I find that there is sufficient evidence to show that the petitioners accused 1 and 4 were kept in wrongful confinement for ten days and they were kept in wrongful confinement on the orders of C.I. of Police Mr. Rajkumar.
5. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction that Sri Rajkumar, C.I. of Police shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,OOOA (Rupees five thousand only) to each of the petitioners i.e., accused 1 and 4 as compensation for keeping them in wrongful confinement. This shall be done within two months.
6. In the meantime, copy of this order and the report of the Magistrate be sent to Director General of Police who will consider ordering of prosecution of Sri Rajkumar, C.I. of Police for keeping the petitioners in wrongful confinement for a period often days.