SRI RAM ARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was subjected to a District Court Martial on the basis of charges framed under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act. There were two charges levelled against the petitioner as it appears from the charge-sheet contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition/the first charge was that he had made a false accusation on 3-2-1985 through an un dated letter submitted to Major Virendra Singh, Offg. Sqn. Commandar C Sqn. and that on 6-2-1985 he addressed another un dated letter to the Commandar 4 (I) Army Brigadier. On the basis of the District Court Martial the petitioner was punished on account of the charges as were levelled in the said charge-sheet by an order dated 16-7-1986 contained in Annexure 8 pur suant to the finding contained in An nexure 7. The appeal preferred by him also stood rejected by an order dated 6-5-1987 contained in Annexure 10. These two or ders have been challenged in this writ peti tion.

(2.) MR. Rajesh Pathik, learned Coun sel for the petitioner contends that since the charges which were levelled were part of the allegation made by him against the officer who was found to have been guilty of other charges which were levelled along with those charges, the same cannot be segregated for the purpose of ascer taining as to whether there was no reason to believe that those charges were false. He refers to various materials on record and contends that there are sufficient materials to come to a finding that those charges were also could have been proved but on account of some technical difficul ties those charges were not proved but at the same time it cannot be said that there are no materials and that those charges were altogether false. Therefore, in 'he facts and circumstances of the case, mis chief under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act cannot be attracted. He secondly contends that the petitioner was proceeded with before the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations could have been asserted. Ac cording to him, unless the genuineness of the allegations are proved, the proceeding could not have been proceeded against the petitioner.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the respec tive argument it would be useful to refer to Section 56 (a) of the Army Act as quoted below:- "section 56. False accusation-Any per son subject to this Act when commits any of the following officers that is to say- (a) makes a false accusation against any person subject ?n this Act, knowing or having reason to believe uich accusation to be false; or (b ). . . . . . "