THAWAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, working as Head Constable in Border Security Force (for short, "BSF"), was tried by Summary Security Force Court for an offence under Section 41(e) of the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Act") with the allegation of accepting sum of Rs.78000/- from three candidates as bribe for their enrollment as Constable in BSF. Upon being found guilty of the charge, was sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment in Civil Jail and dismissal from service. He has accordingly impugned his trial and award of sentence through the present writ petition.

(2.) The challenge to the Summary Security Force Court (for short, "SSFC") proceedings has been made on grounds which are short and blissfully vague. These have been pressed in this manner during the course of arguments. The submission is that the petitioner has been sentenced through an order, which is a non-speaking one and carries no reason in support. It is further pleaded that the impugned order is passed in violation of rules of natural justice and also in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Except for baldly stating so, no averment is made how and which principle of natural justice was violated while passing the impugned order. It is also not elaborated in any manner as to how the order would suffer on the ground that it is a non speaking order and whether there is any such requirement of passing a speaking order under the provisions of the BSF Act. In addition, it is again crisply averred that the provisions of Rule as applicable to the SSFC Court were not complied without making any mention as to which provision was not so complied with. The writ petition is bereft of any ground, which could have been answered in any positive manner and the grounds of challenge have been made without making any reference to the Rule position or law, which was violated while conducting the SSFC proceedings. In the reply filed, it is pointed out that the petitioner was tried by SSFC for the offence under Section 41(e) for accepting a sum of Rs.78000/- from three candidates, namely, Satbir, Krishan Lal and Harish Kumar for their enrollment as Constables. The petitioner was placed under arrest as per the Rules on 15.4.1997. It is also pointed out that the record of evidence was directed to be prepared where the statements of four witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, the petitioner and his co-accused were attached with 15 Battalion BSF, Hisar. It is also pointed out that statements of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner during SSFC trial, where he was given full opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. The petitioner did not produce any witness in his defence. The petitioner was thereafter found guilty and awarded the sentence as stated. The averments made by the petitioner that the provisions of the BSF Act were violated while holding the trial and that order is non-speaking one are denied by averring that there is no provision, which will require the Security Force Court to give reason while giving finding or order sentencing the petitioner. It is also stated that all Rules relevant and applicable were duly complied with while holding the trial of the petitioner, where the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate the grounds of challenge raised by him except for simply stating that the impugned order is a non- speaking order and was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Except for precisely so stating, no other argument was advanced. He could not point out any provision under the BSF Act which required assigning of reasons while passing an order by a Security Force Court. The counsel could not state as to which principle of natural justice was violated.

(3.) It is seen from the record that when this case came up for hearing before this Court in the year 2002, this Court vide order dated 29.7.2002, after making reference to the law laid down in the case of Lt.Col.Prithipal Singh Bedi Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1413, and noticing the amendment made in the provisions of the Army Act, observed that desirability of amending the provisions of BSF Act on the lines of the Army Act to assign reason in support of finding can not be ignored. However, at the same time, it was noticed that till the amendment is made, order passed by the Security Force Courts while exercising powers under the BSF Act may not be liable to be set-aside on this ground. The relevant observations made by this Court in its order dated 29.7.2002 are as under:-