NAIK SARDAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, pursuant to the special leave granted, is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant summarily.

(2.) The appellant was servin as a Jawan in the Indian Army. On 17th September, 1985, he applied for leave and it was granted. He was going to his home town, a village in Rajasthan. He purchased 11 bottles of scaled rum and one bottle of brandy from his Unit Canteen as he required the same to celebrate the marriage of one of his close relations at his home town. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to carry 4 bottles of rum and one bottle of brandy as per the Unit Regulations/ leave certificate when he was proceeding on leave. According to the appellant, the remaining 7 bottles of rum he was able to purchase from the Unit Canteen over and above his entitlement on the orders of its Company Commander and Commanding Officer on compassionate grounds and that there was written order to that effect which was retained by the Salesman of the Unit Canteen at the time of delivery of the extra 7 bottles of rum. Enroute to his home town he had to pass through Surendra Nagar which was under prohibition. The local Civil Police at Surendra Nagar intercepted him and confiscated the bottles of liquor and handed over the appellant along with the liquor bottles to the City Police Station, Surendra Nagar. The City Police in turn handed over him to his Unit authorities for action. The 6th respondent, the Officer Cammanding, 98 Field Regiment, ordered a summary court-martial during which the witnesses including the Civil Police Officer of Surendra Nagar were examined. Ultimately the summary court-martial sentenced the appellant to three months' R.I. and dismissed him from service with effect from 9th October, 1985 by which time the appellant had already put in 10 years of service. His plea throughout has been he had purchased the liquor for the marriage of his brother-in-law on the basis of the permit issued to him and the chits issued by his superiors enabling him to draw the extra 7 bottles of rum and that he had no other bad intention in carrying the liquor bottles. He preferred an appeal to the Army Commander mentioning several irregularities in the summary trial. He also pleaded that he was having unblemished record of service in the Army, but his appeal was rejected. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was summarily rejected.

(3.) In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several irregularities have been committed in conducting the summary trial. But from the records we find that the evidence has been duly recorded and further it is an admitted fact that the appellant was carrying extra 7 bottles of rum without the necessary permit. Therefore we are unable to agree with the counsel that the trial is vitiated and we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused. The main submission and perhaps the only submission, if we may say so, in this appeal is that the sentence awarded to the appellant is wholly disproportionate to the offence committed by him. According to the learned counsel the extreme punishment of imprisonment for 3 months and dismissal from the service under the circumstances is uncalled for.