AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been heard together. Learned counsel Mr. Khetri, appearing for the writ petitioners has advanced arguments common to both the petitions, as indeed, the legal question involved is the same. Therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, so far as facts of both the petitions are concerned, they are being separately noted, although even on this count the basic facts are also common.

(2.) The fact of Civil Rule No. 4744/94 are as noted below.

(3.) The petitioner No. 1 joined service with effect from 11.3.61, the petitioner No.2 from 20.7.70. During the course of service, the petitioners were arrested on 15.12.79 and kept under Military custody and subsequently tried by the General Court Martial on several charges under Sections 63 and 41 of the Army Act for allegedly parting with their belts and participating in a demonstration inside Eastern Base Workshop threat indulging shouting of slogans, demanding release from arrest of a Machinist Shri Sachdeva of the unit, not complying with orders. The petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to suffer 18 months' rigorous imprisonment. They have been kept under suspension for long since 15.12.79. The petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court challenging applicability of the provisions of Army Act in the manner in which it was sought to be done and invoking the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to try the petitioners. By the judgment dated 31.3.87 this Court passed in Writ Appeals Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1980 observed as follows : "We come to the last submission, namely that even if all their contentions fail, considering the fact that the appellants have undergone a long period under military custody, their sentences may be reduced to the period already undergone in each case if they are not acquitted. In this context we keep on record that Mr. P.K. Goswami, the learned counsel For the Union of India, states that if the appellants in writ appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 1980 file applications under Section 179 of the Act for remission of the unexpired portions of their sentences, the same shall be considered favourably by the authorities. There is no reason why this assurance will not be acted upon. By our order dated 13.3.87 we left it open to the appellants to act on that basis in the meantime. Section 179 of the Act deals with pardons, remissions and suspensiuns. In view of the statement made by Mr. Goswami. we are sure that the applications if and when submitted by the appellants under that section shall be considered and the unexpired portions of the sentences shall be remitted. Till then the bail orders shall be continued in force and those shall merge in the orders passed on their respective applications under Section 179."