UNION OF INDIA Vs. EX-CONSTABLE MADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28th October, 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No 2740 of 1981 filed by Madan Singh against Union of India, appellant herein The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are as follows :madan Singh respondent herein, was a Constable in the Border Security Force. He was posted at Jalandhar Cantonment in April 1981. A Criminal case was initiated against him on the charge that on the night intervening April 2/3, 1981, at about mid night he improperly and without authority entered the Unit residential quarter of Miss Jasbir Kaur, a teacher in the local B. S. F. Higher Secondary School and used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty Madan Singh was consequently charged under Sections 40 and 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). During trial, Madan Singh confessed the charges levelled against him and consequently he was convicted by the Security Force Court and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. He was also dismissed from service The order of the Security Force Court was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Border Security Force Jalandhar, vide his order dated April 28, 1981. Madan Singh, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 117 (2) of the Act to the Director General of Border Security Force New Delhi The Director General of Border Security Force dismissed his petition vide order dated 23rd April 1981 which was communicated to him by order dated 29th May, 1981. The writ petitioner challenged the order dated 23rd April, 1981 passed by the Director General of Border Security Force by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2740 of 1981. The said writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28th October, 1983 which has been impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for Union of India, has urged that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing that Madan Singh writ petitioner, should be given an opportunity of hearing with regard to imposition of sentence on him The further argument of the learned counsel is that under Section 117 (2) of the Act, no such opportunity of hearing is required to be given by the Director-General of Border Security Force and, as such, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous in law. We have heard Shri Deepak Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for Madan Singh, respondent.

(3.) IN case of a charge against a person under Sections 40 and 46 of the Act, the trial takes place before the Security Force Court The Security Force Court as defined in Section 3 (u) of the Act means a Court referred to in Section 4 of the Act. Section 64 of the Act lays down that there shall be three kinds of Security Force Courts, namely, (i) General Security Force Courts, (ii) Petty Security Force Courts and (iii) Summary Security Force Courts.