MAJOR SINGH, EX-CONSTABLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Major Singh was a member of the Border Security Force (for short 'BSF'). It was alleged that he was in possession of a fake identity card of Punjab Police on 24.9.1995 at Pardip Palace Cinema Hall, Mamdot, District Ferozepur. He was tried by the Summary Security Force Court under the residuary offence Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). The charge sheet dated 24.1.1995 reads :-

(2.) By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner challenges me verdict holding him guilty and quashing the order of sentence to be in violation of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the trial was held on basis of incomplete record of evidence. All material relied upon by the prosecution was not supplied because the copy of the alleged fake identity card which forms the basis of the charge has not been supplied to the petitioner. Statement of none of the police witnesses recorded in the record of the evidence was supplied. Inadmissible evidence had been recorded and further the statement of the petitioner was recorded by inducement after the cross-examination of the petitioner and pretrial legal advice is premature for extraneous reasons. It was further asserted mat on 21.1.1996 the petitioner had been merely served with an order of Commandant for assembly of Summary Security Force Court for the trial on 23.1.1996. The charge was not explained. The petitioner was not informed of his rights under the Rules. He was not produced before the Summary Security Force Court nor any intimation about the cancellation was given on or after 23.1.1996 on 24.1.1996, the petitioner was illegally produced before the Commandant without any assembly order. The petitioner advisedly pleaded guilty to the charge in order to avoid greater punishment. Copy of the Summary Security Force Court proceedings was not given. It did not include the assembly order of 24.1.1996 but only contained the assembly order dated 23.1.1996. He, therefore, contended that the said assembly order and the order of conviction is illegal. Furthermore plea has been taken that the petitioner has been denied the right of legal assistance from an Advocate in violation of Rules 63(1) and 157 of the Rules (The Border Security Force Rules). The respondents had failed to discharge their obligation to ensure that petitioner does not suffer due to his ignorance. No reference had been made to the prescribed authority. Me alleged-fake identity card had never been placed on the record. On these broad facts, the above saw relief is being claimed. Needless to say that petitioner even prayed that Rules 157 and 63(6) of the Rules are ultra vires of Section 64 of the Act besides Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.