S PULLAMMA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 6 in number, were initially taken into custody as accused in Crime No. 43/96, on the file of Cherla Police Station alleging that they have done away with the life of one Vanaparti Venkateswarlu on the intervening night of 22/23-2-1996 and they were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. But, subsequently it was found that the case was mistakenly alleged, on the basis of final report filed by the S.D.P.O., dated 16-11-1996, filed this writ petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents herein in not conducting an enquiry into the petition dated 31-05-1996 submitted by them against the officials involved in the investigation of the crime and also seeking a direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 9.00 lakhs towards the value of the crops that were lost by the petitioners' family due to their unauthorised detention in the jail for over six months.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is also alleged that because of the humiliation the petitioners' family suffered in the eyes of the public and because of their detention for a period of five months, the husband of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 left their company and they were sent to their father's house i.e., petitioner No. 5's house.

(3.) The respondents filed their counter stating that though on a subsequent stage i.e., during the investigation conducted by the S.D.P.O., it came to light that on the basis of a false statement given by Master V. Narayana, son of the deceased aged about 10 years, the Circle Inspector and his subordinates were justified in taking the petitioners into custody pending investigation treating them as accused. It is also the case of the respondents that on the basisof the report of the petitionersdated31-05-1996, the Addl. Superintendent of Police by his telephonic message dated 22-06-1996 directed the S.D.P.O., to conduct the investigation afresh in which the petitioners innocence was established. Hence, it is not correct to contend that no action was taken by the Addl. Superintendent of Police and other superior officers of the police department. There is no justification in the claim for compensation by the petitioners as the police acted on the basis of the evidence available on record. Hence, they cannot be penalised for the same.