(1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Sri Luxman Giri was enrolled in the Army in the year 1970 and was promoted the rank of Havaldar and appointed as Company Havaldar Major in 15th Battalion Mehar Regiment. In November, 1985 the petitioner was posted with 15th Battalion, Mehar Regiment. During this period a complaint was filed against Sri Luxman Giri under Section-354, IPC by one Sri Ragho Singh on the allegation that Sri Laxman Giri has molested his wife. However, subsequently the aforesaid Ragho Singh himself moved an application that Sri Luxman Giri had not molested his wife but accidentally due to darkness in the way he had collided with his wife after Bara Khana and since the matter has been compromised the complaint be dropped. On the aforesaid basis, no cognizance was taken on the complaint of Sri Ragho Singh. Both the persons again submitted compromise during February 1986 but the Commanding Officer did not take cognizance of such compromise. How ever, on the complaint of said Sri Ragho Singh a trial by summary court-martial was held under the Army Act against Havaldar, Luxman Giri and the summary court-martial held Luxman Giri guilty of the charges of criminal force to a woman with an intent to outrage her modesty. The summary court-martial held Sri Luxrnan Ghi guilty of the said charge and directed inflicting of following punishment : (i) be reduced to rank, (ii) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and directed that the sentence of rigourous imprisonment shall be carried out by confinement in vigil prison, and (iii) to be dismissed from service.
(2.) LUXMAN Giri has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of the court-martial.
(3.) THEREAFTER several times the counsel for Union of India was given time to produce the record of the court martial, to establish it on record that the compliance of Section-120 (2) of the Army Act read with Rule 13 of the Army Rules was made and requisite certificate was obtained before proceed ing with the summary trial. The time was granted initially on 29-3-1995, then on 8-9-1995 and then the matter was directed to be listed on 22-9-1995 peremptorily. On 22-9-1995 a statement was made that the record will be definitely produced before the Court on 20-10-1995 Despite the said assu rance, the record was not produced on 20-10-1995 and the Judgment was reserved. On the basis of the aforesaid proceedings, I am clearly of the view that no reference was made as required under Section 120 (2) of the Army Act read with Rule 130 of the Army Rules.