THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. DICKSON CH. MARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal by Union of India has been filed with prayer for quashing of judgment and order dated 14 -03 -2014 passed in WP(C) No. 224 of 2011 by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge having considered the rival submissions has noticed that the Commandant who filed the charge sheet against the respondent, a Border Security Force personnel for committing civil offence could not have presided over the Summary Trial under Section 64 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, the BSF Act 1968). According to learned Single Judge, the alleged civil offence was cognizable under Section 13(i)(e) and 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the appellant had been found to be in possession of income disproportionate to the known sources of income.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Deb Nath, has one and only argument namely, that in terms of Section 17 of the BSF Act, 1968, the Summary Security Force Court has to be conducted only by the Commandant of any Unit of Force and thus he alone can constitute the Court. According to Mr. R. Deb Nath, the impugned judgment has been rendered contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a judgment reported in : (1988) 2 SCC 459 (Vidya Prakash vrs. Union of India and Ors.) to argue that in the case impugned therein, the Summary Court -Martial was held under the Army Act and Rules by Commanding Officer alongwith two other Officers and the same was held to be valid. Therefore, the same principle should apply in the case of Summary trial proceeding of the Border Security Force.

(3.) MR . AH Hazarika, also cited another judgment namely (State of M.P. vrs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors.) reported in : (2004) 1 SCC 691. According to him, para 6 of the judgment has defined the phrase "known sources of income". Para 6 is reproduced as under: