ARUN CH BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was originally registered on a Fax Message received from the petitioner No. 1 who is an Advocate of the Agartala Bar complaining of illegal detention of Shri Rakhal Mazumdar, an Advocate of Amarpur in the State of Tripura. Subsequently, the wife of Shri Rakhal Mazumdar was added as petitioner No.2. After hearing, the order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980 was quashed by the Court on the ground that it was vitiated by nonapplication of mind and Shri Rakhal Mazumdar was set at liberty by order dated 17.2.93. By the said order, however, the Court did not close the case and observed that the allegations made against the respondent No.3 relating to the torture of Shri Rakhal Mazumdar would he examined and by order dated 19.4.93. the Court appointed Shri A.B. Paul, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Agartala, as the Enquiry Officer and directed him to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations after the notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, such other officers against whom the allegations have been made, the Secretary, Govl. of Tripura in the Home Department, Shri Rakhal Mazumdar and the petitioner.

(2.) Pursuant to the said order dated 19.4.93, the Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report in two parts ; Part-I containing his findings and Part-II containing the deposition of witnesses and the exhibited documents. After receipt of the said enquiry report, by order dated 19.1.93, the Court granted time to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to file their personal affidavits in reply to the report. By order dated 15.11.95, the Court also directed that Shri B.M. Sinha, the then B.D.O. on whose complaint Shri Rakhal Mazumdar was detained would also be impleaded as respondent No.5 and he was given an opportunity to file his affidavit in connection with the report. By the said order dated 15.11.95, the Court also directed the petitioner and the State of Tripura to file their affidavits in respect of the complaints lodged by Shri D.M. Sinha. The State of Tripura filed an affidavit which indicated that a case under Sections 448/354/376/511 IPC in the Birganj P.S. has been registered being Birganj P.S. Case No. 1(3)/93 against Shri Rakhal Mazumdar but investigation into the said criminal case had not been completed, Finally, Ihe matter was heard on 19.11.96, when Mr. B. Das, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners, Mr, A.K. Bhattacharyya and Mr. D.P. Kataky, learned counsel appeared for the State of Tripura, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned counsel appeared for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. J.M, Chuudhury, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 5.

(3.) Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the findings in the enquiry report of Shri A.B. Paul, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agartala and submitted that it is clear from the said findings that Shri Rukhal Mazumdar had been beaten up and tortured by the police. He vehemently argued that the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 as well as the then S.D.O., Amarpur .should have been named by Shri Paul in his enquiry report as the persons responsible for the torture and assault of Shri Rakhal Mazumdar and in support of this argument relied on Ihe statements of Shri Rakhal Mazumdar given in the enquiry us well as his affidavit filed before this Court. According to Mr. Das, this Court should direct severe action to be taken against the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 as well as the then S.D.O., Amarpur for such illegal acts of assault on Shri Mazumdar. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behra Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960, Mr. Das contended that the detenu's right under Article 21 of the Constitution having been violated by illegal acts of assault on the part of the authorities, the detenue Shri Rakhal Mazumdar was entitled to compensation. He placed before us the photographs, X-Ray reports and medical reports which had been exhibited in the enquiry to show that the injuries suffered by Shri Rakhal Mazumdar on account of the assault by the authorities were of a severe nature. Mr. Das stated that for the treatment of the said injuries, Shri Rakhal Mazumdar had to go to a hospital at Calcutta and could not pursue his profession for several months, and even now Shri Mazumdar is unable to perform some normal acts and suffers from certain disabilities due to the injuries. According to Mr. Das, Shri Mazumdar had also suffered loss of reputation for which he was entitled to damages. For all these physical injuries, loss of income and damage to his reputation of Shri Mazumdar, Mr. Das suggested an estimate of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation.