KHAZANSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Judge No. 2, Jaipur rejected the claim of the four applicants before me, who are commissioned officers of the Indian Army to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes trial by Court Martial by his order dated 10th October, 1966, and it is against this order that they have come up in revision.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision application briefly stated are : a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge on 27th January, 1966 against 8 persons accusing them of offences of criminal conspiracy, bribery, criminal breach of trust, cheating and falsification of accounts under the Indian penal Code and under Section 5 (2) read with Sections 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One of them K. S. Oberei turned an approver. Out of the remaining 7 accused three are civilians and four are officers of the indian Army who are applicants before me. On 5th March, 1966 the case was adjourned to 4th July, 1966 at the request of the Public Prosecutor enabling him to supply the copies of documents envisaged by Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure and for enforcing the attendance of the two accused persons, who were not served till then. No progress of the case was made until 13/14-9-1966 when the four applicants. Army Officers, moved a joint application praying that in view of the Criminal Law amendment (Amending) Act, 1966 they being commissioned officers of the Indian army were entitled to be dealt within accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Judge rejected their application, and, therefore the present revision application.

(3.) MR. Agarwal appearing for the applicants urged that the order of the learned special Judge is erroneous because he failed to give effect to Section 5 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Amending) Act, 1966. Mr. Mehta for opposite party supported the order of the Special Judge.