RAJABHAU SAMBHAJIRAO KAMBLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, in this petition, is assailing the order passed by the confirming Officer, dated 25th September, 1998, thereby confirming the sentence awarded by Summary General Court Martial directing the Petitioner to under go rigorous imprisonment for three months and further order of dismissal from army services.

(2.) The Petitioner was selected and appointed as Sepoy at K-3 Mahar regiment. He joined the armed services on 26th December, 1989. The Petitioner served armed forces and was posted at various places. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was posted as Sepoy at 56, mountain Brigade and was stationed in Kashmir region. The Petitioner, while he was posted in kashmir, was allegedly involved in commission of offence like extortion of money by giving threats to the persons, possessing fire-arm without valid licence. The charges framed against the Petitioner were: (i) under section 69 of Army Act - committing social offence that is to say, Robbery, as punishable under section 392 of the Ranbir Penal Code (allegation that at Shrinagar on 2nd August, 1997, by putting Mustak Ahmed in fear of instant death, extracting sum of Rs. 500/- from him) , and (ii) under section 69 of the Army Act - committing social offence that is to say, that possessing fire Arm without valid licence, contrary to section 25 (IB) (a) of the Army Act, 1959 (allegation that at Shrinagar on 2nd August, 1997, was found in possession of Chinese Pistol bearing registration No. M-11887, without valid licence, issued by the competent authority).

(3.) According to the Petitioner, he has been falsely involved in the alleged offence, at the instance of ill-wishers of the petitioners in the army, who were indulging in such type of offence. It appears that a Summary General court Martial inquiry was directed against the petitioner and the Summary General Court martial, after recording evidence, placed before it, found the petitioner guilty and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, by order dated 1st May, 1998. It is contended by the Petitioner that he had undergone a sentence of 80 days of custody earlier and after pronouncement of sentence he was taken in custody for a period of 10 days.