S. NAMBINARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three connected Writ Appeals are filed against same judgment of the learned single Judge in a Writ Petition filed by the State challenging the order passed on 14.3.2001 by the National Human Rights Commission under S. 18(3) of the Human Rights Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') granting Rs. 10 lakhs interim compensation to the complainant before them who was a Senior Scientist in the Indian Space Research Organisation at Valiyamala for implicating him in a false criminal case of espionage and the consequent suffering he had. We have heard Government Pleader for State which filed one Writ Appeal and both the counsel appearing for the appellants in other two Writ Appeals and one filed by the victim, the complainant before N.H.R.C. and the other by the then D.I.G. of State Police who was heading the investigation team and also Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government Parties arrayed and the documents referred to in this judgment are those in W.A. No. 422/2007. The events that led to the filing of the complaint by the appellant before the N.H.R.C. and passing of orders under S. 18(3) of the Act by them are the following.

(2.) Appellant while working as Senior Scientist and Project Head of 5 projects in I.S.R.O. was implicated in a case of espionage by the Vanchiyoor Police which registered Crime No. 246/1992 on 30.11.1994. Within two days of registering crime, a Special Team of Kerala Police was constituted to investigate the case that was headed by the 3rd respondent who was then D.I.G. of Police (Crimes). Information leading to registration of crime for offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act emanated from a lady who was a Mali Citizen found overstaying in a hotel at Thiruvananthapuram beyond the period covered by the Visa issued to her. The appellant being one of the accused named in the crime case was arrested on 30.11.1994 and was produced before the Magistrate Court on the following day which led to his remand to police custody. The appellant was subjected to protracted questioning by the Kerala Police along with officials of the Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing of the Central Government. Even though Special Investigation Team was constituted by the State Government for conducting investigation of the case based on recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, the State Government referred the case for investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation on 5.12.1994. Appellant was under detention for few days in police custody and later in judicial custody until 19.1.1995 when the High' Court granted bail. Even though appellant along with another Scientist of I.S.R.O. and a Contractor having business with I.S.R.O. and two ladies from Mali were arrayed as accused in the crime registered by the State Police, the C.B.I. after elaborate investigation found that the case booked against the appellant and others was completely false and therefore liable to be closed. The closure report submitted by C.B.I. on 16.4.1996 was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam discharging the appellant and others on 2.5.1996.

(3.) Very strange events followed after closure of the case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The State Government on 27.6.1996 issued a notification recalling the consent given to the C.B.I. for investigation which was already over thereby giving way for another round of investigation by the State Police. The appellant challenged the notification issued by the Government permitting re-investigation by the police after closure of the same by the C.B.I. which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court, though the challenge made by the State Police against the closure of the F.I.R. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was rejected by this Court. Appellant and others challenged the Division Bench judgment of this court upholding re-investigation/further investigation permitted by the State Government after closure of C.B.I. investigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1998 AIR(SC) 2010 allowed the appeals filed by the appellant and other accused by cancelling the Government order and condemned the attitude of the Government in ordering re-investigation or further investigation in a criminal case closed by the C.B.I. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court completely accepted the C.B.I.'s report and held that all proceedings were vitiated by mala fides and no responsible Government should act in the manner done by the Government. Consequently Appeals filed by the appellant and others were allowed by granting cost @ of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the six accused persons including the appellant. Within 6 months from the date of rendering the judgment by the Supreme Court, the appellant on 14.10.1998 filed complaint before the N.H.R.C. for various reliefs such as compensation for the loss and suffering and also for direction to take action against the police officers concerned. The N.H.R.C. considered the complaint in the light of the report of the C.B.I. and the observations and findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment and considered it a fit case for orders under S. 18(3) granting an advance compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant. This order dated 14.3.2001 issued by the N.H.R.C. is challenged by the State in the Writ Petition filed in this court which was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned in all writ appeals setting aside the order issued by the N.H.R.C. under S. 18(3) and directing them to re-consider the maintainability of the complaint with specific reference to S. 36(2) of the Act in the light of judgments of the Apex Court particularly in the decision in N. C. Dhoundial v. Union of India, 2004 AIR(SC) 1272 . In the very same order produced as Ext. P6 and challenged by the State in the Writ Petition filed by them there was also a direction by the N.H.R.C. to the State Government to report to it the action taken against the police officers concerned. Even though Single Judge virtually allowed the Writ Petition filed by the State by setting aside the order issued under S. 18(3) and by remanding the matter to the N.H.R.C. for re-consideration of maintainability, Writ appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment because according to the State, Single Judge himself should have declared the complaint as barred by limitation under S. 36(2) of the Act The appellants grievance in the Writ Appeal is that as on the date of disposal of the Writ Petition 12 years had passed since his suffering and the judgment has deprived him of even the advance interim compensation granted by the N.H.R.C. under S. 18(3) of the Act. Even though the 3rd respondent had not challenged the interim order in a separate Writ Petition, he has filed Writ Appeal against judgment supporting the State and by raising the same contention that complaint is not maintainable and if at all maintainable against the State he has no personal responsibility as he was only head of the investigating team. Since the judgment under appeal is the same in all the Writ Appeals we have heard all the cases together and proceed to dispose of the same by this common judgment.