DEPINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.3 remains unserved. However, service on him would not be necessary as during the course of the proceedings learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in consequence of the order dated 19.09.2012 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal Chandigarh Bench at Chandimandir ('Tribunal' for short), the re-trial of the Summary Court Martial of the petitioner has been conducted and he has again been held guilty of the charges attributed to him. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that re-trial of the petitioner could not have been ordered by the learned Tribunal in view of provisions of Section 16 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The order of the learned Tribunal has been assailed to the limited extent that re-trial of the petitioner had been ordered.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The petitioner was working in the army in the rank of 'Sowar' (Acting Lance Dafadar) in the 46 Armoured Regiment. He was tried by the Summary Court Martial on 07.10.2008 under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for committing a civil offence, that is to say, using criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty in contravention of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner at Hisar Military Station on 22.03.2008, used criminal force to a lady, who was wife of Acting Lance Dafadar of his regiment by catching her and kissing her on the cheeks, lips and neck, intending thereby to outrage her modesty. In consequence of the Summary Court Martial proceedings, the petitioner was awarded the sentence "to be dismissed from service". The petitioner based his defence on the ground that there was on complete lack of evidence against him and that he happened to be a victim of circumstances. It was submitted that in fact the lady who appeared as PW-1 and LD Anil Kumar (PW-6) were seen by him embracing each other. To suppress the said fact, the said lady (PW-1) concocted a story that the petitioner had molested her.