1. The petitioner is the father of an unfortunate young boy, who was arrested by the Police. The sequence of events started from the date when one girl went missing. Her parents lodged a complaint before the police. A man - missing case was registered by the police. The girl returned after four days. It was found that the girl was in the company of the petitioner’s son and three of his friends. Thereafter, as requested by the police, the parents of the girl and the girl went to the police station and gave statements to the police. The girl submitted that she had not been in any way harmed by the youths. The girl was referred for medical examination, in which it was proved that she was not subjected to any kind of sexual intercourse. The girl and her parents had no complaint against the petitioner’s son and the other youths, in whose company the girl had been. It appears that the girl had some difference of opinion with her parents, which was the reason for her to leave her home and she was under the protective custody of the youths at the relevant time. But the police arrested the youths and charged them with offences under Sec. 366A, Sec. 376 and Sec. 420, read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s son was arrested on 21-08-2005, but was produced before the Magistrate only on 24-08-2005. when he was produced before the Magistrate on 24-08-2005, the boy complained to the Magistrate that he was manhandled by the police. The Magistrate referred the boy for medical examination to the general hospital. The doctor who examined him prepared a wound certificate, in which he recorded injuries found by him on the body of the petitioner’s son. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta complaining of illegal custody by the police, of his son from 21-08-2005 to 24-08-2005 and manhandling of the petitioner’s son resulting in injuries to his body. The Lok Ayukta registered a complaint as Complaint No. 1804/05 and directed the Superintendent of Police, attached to the office of the Kerala Lok Ayukta to investigate the complaint. He conducted detailed investigation and submitted Ext. P9 report, wherein he came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s son was taken into custody by the police on 21-08-2005 and that the boy was manhandled by the police. Thereafter, the Lok Ayukta considered the complaint, examined witnesses, who did not include the Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation on behalf of the Lok Ayukta, and came to the conclusion that the complainant miserably failed to prove that his son was taken into custody by the respondents on 21-08-2005, kept in illegal custody in the police station, manhandled and was produced before the Magistrate only on 24-08-2005 as contended by him. Ext. P13 is the report of the Lok Ayukta on the complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, there was sufficient evidence before the Lok Ayukta, which would unmistakably point to the fact that the petitioner’s son was taken into custody on 21-08-2005, kept in illegal custody and manhandled. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in Ext. P9 report, the Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation on behalf of the Lok Ayukta, had come to the definite conclusion that the petitioner’s son was taken into custody on 21-08-2005 and that he was manhandled. Strangely, in Ext. P13 report of the Lok Ayukta, there is absolutely no consideration of Ext. P9 report although the report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police attached to the Lok Ayukta. It is further submitted that the Lok Ayukta did not consider the matter in the right perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lok Ayukta considered the matter as a criminal case, as if it was for the petitioner to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned counsel submi