SANTOSH KUMAR PYARELAL MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a driver serving in Army and at the relevant time was posted at 84 Armed Regiment of Electronics Regiment attached with Technical Wing Armoured Corps Centre and School, Ahmednagar. The petitioner was enrolled in army in December, 1981. On October 28, 1984, while he was on duty as a driver driving military vehicle of 1 ton Nissan BA No. 83-C-35460-A of Technical Wing from headquarters towards D. R. Lines on Rajendra Singhji Road, an accident took place. It was alleged that at the traffic island near Camp Post Office, a civil jeep having registration No. MHA 2926 coming from right on J. N. Chaudhary Road dashed against the military vehicle. As a result of said collusion, the civilian jeep took 1800 turn fell on its left side. The left front mud-guard and superstructure of the jeep were damaged. The right side bumper of the 1 ton truck was bent inwards after an impact around the centre of the bumper. There were 7 passengers in the civilian jeep including the driver. Due to the impact, the person sitting to the left side, namely, one Mohan Ashok Sahasrabudde and the driver at the right end were trapped under the jeep. Though they were removed to Booth Hospital at Ahmednagar for treatment, Mohan Sahasrabudde succumbed to his injury on the same day.

(2.) THE petitioner was, therefore, tried before the Summary Court Martial and decision arrived at by Summary Court Martial is that the petitioner was held guilty and he was imposed a sentence of dismissal from his service coupled with rigorous imprisonment for six months by confinement in civil prison with the remission of 3 months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner, however, came to be dismissed on 16-3-1988. This petition is, therefore, filed challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal as well as against imposing sentence of imprisonment for 3 months in civil prison.

(3.) SHRI Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the main contention that the Summary Court Martial was not competent authority under the provisions of section 120 (2) of the Army Act, 1950. Therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of this submission, Shri Dhorde, counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to section 119 of the Act which deals with the powers of District Court Martial and according to him the only authority empowered to impose sentence is one under section 119 in case of civil offence falling under section 69 of the Act.