Annual Report 2012-2013 of Police issued an order to his gunman to open fire of eight rounds. Varun Alva, the gunman, accordingly, fired eight rounds in a single fire mode with the weapon available with him, i.e. AK - 47 at the people leading the mob. 4.153 During the magisterial enquiry, the Additional District Magistrate examined 33 public and 17 Police witnesses. He concluded that the opening of fire by the Police in front of Mulky Police Station was necessary and justified. He also held that the firing was not excessive. The Magistrate did not, however, make any comment about the use of AK- 47 rifle. 4.154 An enquiry was also conducted by ADGP, CID, Bangalore in which it was concluded that the use of AK-47 rifle was not violative of the circular issued by the Union Government as the gunman had fired eight rounds in a single fire mode in defence of the SP and not in order to control the mob. 4.155 While considering the reports received, the Commission on 18 January 2012 observed that there could be no basis for the apprehension that the rifles stored in the Police station would be looted by the mob. There may have been some justification for Police firing at the Mulky Bus Stand but the police firing in front of the police station appeared to be totally unjustified. It was evident from various reports that there was considerable distance between Mulky Bus Stand and the Police Station. 4.156 Even assuming that there was some justification for firing, the use of AK-47 rifle definitely amounted to misuse of power. The CID report itself mentions a circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India according to which the Union Government has for good reasons prohibited the use of AK-47 rifles for the purpose of maintaining law and order and for controlling violent mobs. The SP, could not have, therefore, asked his gunman to use AK-47 rifle on the pretext of self-defence or on any other ground. Such use of AK-47 rifle definitely amounted to violation of human rights. 4.157 The Commission was prima facie convinced that Dinesh and Premanand became victims of excessive and unwarranted use of force by the Police. It thus directed to issue notice to the Government of Karnataka requiring it to show cause why monetary relief u/ s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not given to the next of kin of the deceased Dinesh and Premanand. 4.158 In response, the Under Secretary, Home Department (Crimes), Government of Karnataka vide communication dated 22 May 2012 submitted that the State Government had paid `1,00,000 as monetary relief to each of the next of kin of the two deceased. 4.159 The Commission vide its proceeding dated 14 June 2012 observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of ` 1,00,000 given by the State Government to the next of kin of each of the two deceased is grossly inadequate for the loss of human life. The State Government must, therefore, pay adequate compensation to the next of kin of the NHRC 51