GULZAR HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, review of the judgment dated 29.11.2012 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Mohammad Yaqoob MirJ) was a member, is prayed for.

(2.) The case of the review petitioner is that Rule 49(3) and Rule 48(3) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 have to be read together. It is submitted on his behalf that if that be the case, then the copy of the abstract of evidence was to be supplied by the officer making the same to the accused (the review petitioner) and the latter was to be given an opportunity to make a statement, if he so desired, after he had been cautioned in the manner laid down in Rules 48(3) and 49(3) of the said rules. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, this was a mandatory requirement and because no copy of the abstract of evidence had been supplied to the review petitioner, Rule 49(3) has not been followed and as a result of which the entire proceedings stand vitiated.

(3.) The Division Bench in its judgment dated 29.11.2012 had recorded the submission made on behalf of the respondents that in terms of Rule 48(3), the review petitioner had been cautioned, but he had stated that he would not like to make any statement. The submission on behalf of the respondent was that in case the review petitioner had desired to make a statement, then adherence to Rule 49(3) was imperative and that he would have to be furnished with the abstract of evidence. It was submitted that since the review petitioner had not chosen to make any statement, on being given the opportunity to do so, the furnishing of the abstract of the evidence was not required.