JASPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaspal Singh petitioner has filed this petition primarily with a prayer for supply of District Court Martial proceedings in respect of trial of Sargent Bhattacharya (respondent No.3), who, while driving vehicle belonging to Air Force, had caused the death of son of the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner would urge that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner leading to death and, thus, FIR No.125 dated 19.4.1997 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC. His grievance is that though respondent No.3 was responsible for causing this death and, thus, answerable for offence under Section 304A IPC, yet no proper legal action or proceedings have been initiated or taken against him. As per the averments made in the petition, respondent No.3 was let off with award of 'Severe Displeasure', which, apparently is not one of the punishment prescribed or specified under the Air Force Act. No reply in this case has been filed. Since the request of the petitioner for supply of District Court Martial proceedings was declined, he is not fully aware of the proceedings as well as the manner in which the finding or sentence has been awarded. Accordingly, he has made a prayer for supply of District Court Martial proceedings to enable him to take appropriate legal action thereafter. Before approaching this court, the petitioner had made a request in writing to the Chief of Air Staff and other officials for supply of the District Court Martial proceedings as well as to challenge the verdict of District Court Martial. His request for supply of District Court Martial proceedings was declined on 28.5.2001. The petitioner was informed that the authorities were unable to concede to his request in the absence of any provision authorising the supply of proceedings to him.

(3.) That may be the stand of the authorities, but in an era, governed by Right to Information Act, it will certainly not be proper to deny the copy of the proceedings to the petitioner or any information relating thereto. The petitioner is a person, who had lodged the FIR. He is aggrieved father, who has lost his son. He had appeared as a witness before the District Court Martial as well. The offence alleged against respondent No.3 is a civil offence, though triable by a Court Martial as well. In such cases, the criminal court as well as the Court Martial would have a concurrent jurisdiction. It may be that a discretion about the forum, is primarily be with authorities under the Air Force Act, yet that discretion is not an unfettered one and is a judicial discretion open to judicial review by courts. The petitioner has a status of complainant. To deny him the Court Martial proceedings, would amount to denying him his rights, though limited as complainant to challenge the proceedings in accordance with law. It is not for this court to see or to say if any challenge to the verdict of the District Court Martial can be made by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to look into this aspect and take any remedial measures. Certainly, he cannot take any appropriate action till he is provided access to the court martial proceedings. Even in the absence of a statutory provision under the Act regarding supply of District Court Martial proceedings to the petitioner, it will not now be legally possible for the respondents to deny this information to the petitioner. He can certainly invoke the provisions of Right to Information Act to have this information and proceedings. It would be futile to relegate the petitioner now to make approach under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner is a person aggrieved being a complainant and can take action only once the proceedings are supplied to him.