S MOHAMMED SHERIFF ROWTHER Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the father of one Mohammed Basheer. It is stated that on 8.7.1989 the aforesaid son, who was aged about 24 at that time left for Mettupalayam. Since he did not return for three days, the petitioner went to Mettupalayam and enquired about the whereabouts of his missing son. The complaint lodged about the missing son was registered as Crime No.361 of 1989. Under the direction of the Collector, Coimbatore, an enquiry was held by the Sub- Collector. The Sub-Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s son had been taken into custody by the police and even tortured by the police. The Sub-Collector recommended that the task of tracing the missing son may be entrusted to the Crime Branch and he also recommended for initiating proceedings in the administrative side against the errant officials. The aforesaid recommendations were accepted by the Government which issued G.O.Ms.No.1613 dated 6.10.1989 to launch criminal prosecution and to initiate departmental action. The petitioner in the meantime approached several authorities by way of representations including a representation dated 2.8.1989 to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Subsequently he had also sent a representation to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. After waiting for sometime, the petitioner filed petition No.55 of 1991 before the Justice Khalid Commission of Inquiry. The Commission found that the petitioner’s son had been taken into custody and tortured in such police custody. However, the Commission did not come to any conclusive opinion regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner’s son. It recommended that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs should be paid as interim compensation and the petitioner may take appropriate steps claiming damages before the appropriate forum. Acting upon such report of the Commissiion, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has already been paid to the petitioner as interim compensation. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed in the year 1995 for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the Director General of Police “ to conduct, continue and give the results of the enquiry that has been conducted with regard to the missing of petitioner’s son, Mohammed Basheer, from 8.7.89 and award appropriate compensation to the petitioner . . .”

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government wherein it is indicated that whereabouts of Mohammed Basheer are yet to be found out. It has been further stated that the order of suspension against the police officials have been quashed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and even the criminal case ended in acquittal. The counter affidavit is non-committal about the allegation that the petitioner’s son was taken into custody and was tortured while in such custody. It has been further stated that investigation has already been completed and there is no necessity of further investigation and issuing a writ of mandamus would be a futile exercise.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the criminal case has ended in acquittal and in view of the conclusion of the criminal court, it would not be proper to come to any different conclusion in the present proceeding. Law is well settled that in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. whereas the standard of proof in a civil case or other proceeding such as departmental proceeding is different and such findings in a criminal case would not operate as res judicata.