HANUWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Hanuwantsingh has submitted this application under sec. 491 Criminal Procedure Code and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence recorded by a Court Martial Tribunal dated 3rd April, 1971 and subsequently confirmed by a competent authority on 8th May, 1971, and praying that his conviction and sentence be set aside and he be set at liberty.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these - THE petitioner was holding the post of Naik and was posted as No. 1033540 in 27 Mountain Division Intelligence Field Security Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at the relevant time. One Ramlal was also working in the same company but in a different unit and was posted as IC-27-207/2 Lieutenant in 7 Composite Platoon. On 16th March, 1971 the petitioners was served with a charge sheet by Shri G. C. Kaul, Major Commanding the Company. THE charge was that he used criminal force to his superior officer which was in reference to one Ramlal. A District Court Martial was formed under the orders of I-C, 1792 Major General I. M. Vohra, General Officer Commanding 27 Mountaia Division. During the trial the petitioner raised an objection before the Tribunal that since Shri Ramlal was not a superior officer in relation to the petitioner the charge could not be tried by the Court Martial but could be tried only by a criminal court. This objection was over ruled by the Court Martial. After recording evidence and allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, the Court Martial vide its order dated 3rd April, 1971 found the petitioner guilty of the charge and convicted him and awarded the following sentences - (a) to be reduced to the ranks. (b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and (c) to be dismissed from the service. THE conviction and the sentences were confirmed by Major General I. M. Vohra on 8th May, 1971. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentences as confirmed, the petitioner filed this application under sec. 491, Criminal P. C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging his conviction and sentences.

(3.) THE third submission of Shri Shrimali is that the Court Martial was convened by Shri T. M. Vohra who was not competent to convene the Tribunal. This allegation has also been denied by the respondent. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that under a warrant issued by the Chief of the Army Staff, Major General T. M. Vohra and some other officers were competent to convene Court Martial. We may point out in the first instance that the petitioner did not raise any such objection during the Court Martial proceedings. He, therefore, cannot raise this objection in this writ petition, specially when the question of jurisdiction can be decided only after a proper enquiry. We are also satisfied with the stand taken by the respondent that Major General T. M. Vohra was competent to convene the Court Martial.