Annual Report 1999-2000 truth of Ms. Kamini Sharma's complaint. It was prima fade established that the arrests and detentions had been illegal and the conclusion was inescapable that they had been detained to put pressure on Kapil Sharma to surrender. The course of action adopted by the police was found to be wholly unjustifiable by the Commission. It could not be backed by any authority of law. The Commission thus directed the UP Government to get a case of illegal arrest/ detention registered against the delinquent police offidals, and initiate appropriate disdplinary proceedings against the SSP, Mathura, for his incorrect report and lack of concern for the human rights of the citizenry of the country. The Commission also directed the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the victims by way of immediate interim relief. High-handed acts of the police: Uttar Pradesh (Case No. 1970/94-95/NHRC) In a complaint to the Commission, Shri Brijendra Singh alleged that on 9 April 1994, certain police officials, under the directions of the SHO, came to his house, destroyed his household articles as well as those of his family members and caused a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite protest by the local population, the doors and windows of his house were extensively damaged. The police allegedly also took away Rs; 18,400/- in cash and 500 grams of gold. The complainant supported his allegations by photographs showing the extent of damage done to his properties. In response to the notice issued by the Commission, the Government of Uttar Pradesh submitted a report stating that in a case pending against the complainant, the police had gone to his home on a number of occasions to apprehend him. Unable to succeed in their efforts, a coercive process in the form of an attachment proceeding was obtained fi-om the court. During the course of attachment, the State Government admitted that some police officials had committed irregularities for which censure had been recorded in their personal files, and disciplinary action had also been taken against the Inspectors and subordinate police officers. On consideration of the report, the Commission noted that though irregularities were admitted in the report, the State Government did not mention clearly, whether the guilty police offidals were being prosecuted. The report was also silent regarding the allegation of destruction of property worth Rs. 2 lakhs by the police and the taking away of Rs. 18,400 in cash and 500 grams of gold. The Commission found the report very sketchy as it did not respond to all the allegations. TTie Commission, therefore, rejected the report ^nd called for a fresh report from the Chief Secretary, Government of UR requesting him to respond to all the allegations in the complaint and the observations made by it. In a subsequent report, the State Government of UP stated that a Circle Officer and three Sub-Inspectors had been found guilty of committing irregularities during the 112