SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved and therefore, with the consent of the parties these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN Cr. W.J.C. No. 250 of 1998 the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the order dated 22.4.1998 purported to have been issued for convening general Court Martial for commencing trial of petitioner for offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 52(f) and 63 of the Army Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A further prayer has been made for appropriate direction to the respondents restraining them from taking steps for commencing the trial. A similar prayer has been made in other two writ petitions being Cr.W.J.C. Nos. 251 and 252 of 1998 for quashing the order by which the respondents purported to convene general Court Martial for commencing trial of the petitioner for the offence alleged to have been committed under the aforesaid sections of the Army Act. Since a very limited question of law is involved in this writ application it would be suffice to state in brief the facts of the case of Cr.W.J.C. No. 250 of 1998.

(3.) MR . Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the respondents for commencing of the trial as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel the respondents have no authority under the law to commence the trial after the expiry of the period fixed under Section 122 of the Army Act. The learned Counsel then submitted that when a preliminary objection with regard to bar of the trial was raised by the petitioner then it is incumbent upon the respondent authority to decide first the objection with regard to limitation by a reasoned order. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that the fixation of date by the respondent under Section 122(c) of the said Act is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. Mr. Jha further submitted that the respondent authority is neither passing any order on the objection with regard to limitation nor the respondents arc ready to supply the photostat copy of the order. If the objection of the petitioner is rejected, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is entitled to know the order that may or might have been passed on the objection with regard to limitation.