RAM NARAIAN TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated IIth December, 1998 the following points were formulated for decision, which are as follows :

(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavits have been filed by the respective parties bringing on record the amended provision of Rule 43. which provided that the order convening the Court martial may be signed by a staff of the convening officer. But the said Rule was amended on 27th July, 1995 and came into force on 12th August, 1995. Such amendment, admittedly, is prospective. Thus the present Court martial having been convened before the amendment was made, cannot be governed by the amended Rule 43. Rule 43 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 before amendment provided as follows :

(3.) IN the present case, as contended by Mr. A.P. Shahi, the Court -martial was convened by the convening officer. But the order of convening Court -martial was not signed by him. The only point that was urged by Mr. Shahi was that since the order convening the Court martial was not signed by the convening officer, therefore the same is hit by Rule 43 to the extent that it does not specify that there was a satisfaction by the convening officer. It is urged by Mr, Shahi that there was no satisfaction by the convening officer before the Court martial was convened or that there was a failure of the convening officer to decide the description of the Court martial, which he had proposed to convene. In other words the contention of Mr. Shahi is to the extent that by reason of omission to sign the order convention of the Court martial by the officer convening it, he had not satisfied himself with regard to the description of the Court martial he proposed to convene in order to try the case or put it precisely whether the case which was being set down for trial could be tried by the description of the Court martial sought to be convened or was it a case proper for being tried by the description of such Court martial and thus hit by sub -rule (2) of Rule 53.