Gujarat High Court
Nanuki Prasad vs Union Of India on 12 September, 2018
Author: J.B. Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2192 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
NO
thereunder ?
==========================================================
NANUKI PRASAD.... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 2.... Respondents
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA(6312) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR NIRZAR S DESAI(2117) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MR RAKESH PATEL, APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 12/09/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a dismissed employee of the Border Security Page 1 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Force, has prayed for the following reliefs:
"7(A) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21st September 2009 passed by the Director General, BSF - respondent No.2 herein in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the General Security Court at Annexure - A to the petition.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 21st September 2009 passed by the Director General, BSF - respondent No.2 herein in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the General Security Court at AnnexureA to the petition.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail on any suitable terms and conditions which this Honourable Court deems just and proper.
(D) This Honourable Court may be pleased to pass such other and furhter orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
(E) Since the petitioner is detained in Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad and the facts of the present case are taken from the record, filing of the affidavit in support of this petition may be dispensed with."
2 The case of the writ applicant, in his own words, as pleaded in the writ application, is as under:
Page 2 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"3.1 The petitioner states and submits that the petitioner joined BSF on 11st August 2001 at STC, Borer Security Force, Tekanpur. After completing the basic training at Gogoland and Indore, the petitioner joined 133 Battalion, BSF at Ramgarh, Rajasthan and since then he served there. It is respectfully submitted that in the month of September 2008 the petitioner was transferred from 133 Battalion, BSF, Ramgarh and was attached with Sector HQ Bsf, Gandhinagar.
3.2 The petitioner states and submit that after reporting for duty at HQ BSF, Gandhinagar, the petitioner was assigned the duty of working as Security Aide to one Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner's family which consists of his son and wife was also staying with him and therefore the petitioner took outlive permission from the Commandant of 133 Battalion, BSF and started living with his family.
3.3 The petitioner states and submit that as the petitioner was assigned the duty of working as Security Aide to Dr. (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO he went to the Government Quarter of said Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur located in the BSF Campus, Gandhinagar. One G. Satish, Constable was also assigned the duty of working as Security Aide to Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur. After reporting for duty to Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, she informed the petitioner that the primary duty of the petitioner and another Constable, G. Satish will be to take care of and look after her minor son, Master Ojaswin. She further told the petitioner that the petitioner as well as said G. Satish should coordinate with each other and perform the duties in the kitchen as well. It is respectfully submitted that thus the petitioner and the other Constable shall have to manage the house and look after Master Ojaswin.
3.4 The petitioner states and submits that on13th March 2008 at about 14.00 hours when the petitioner, after performing the duty the petitioner went to his home for lunch. At that time, the petitioner's wife informed the petitioner that she wanted to goo to market for some work, the petitioner should accompany her. Then, the petitioner told her that the petitioner should take permission from the Madam and therefore for taking the permission he came back to the Quarter of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur. When he entered the house of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, he saw Constable P Venkat Rao and Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur in naked and comprising position. The petitioner got shocked to see the said incident and therefore he immediately came out and went to his house. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner again went to the Quarter of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur in the evening and at that time Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur along with Constable P Venkat Rao and her son Master Ojaswin were present in the Quarter. At that time, Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur informed the Page 3 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner not to disclose the incident to anyone.
3.5 The petitioner states and submit that on the next day the petitioner sought permission of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur for taking his son for dental check up at Karnavati Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar and Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur gave him permission. Accordingly, on 15th March 2008 the petitioner took his son to Karnavati Hospital for his dental check up. When the petitioner reached at Ftr Hospital, he was informed by nursing assistant that Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO has called him to her residence along with Ct/Dvr Raj Kumar. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the residence of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO alongwith Ct/dvr Raj Kumar and my son. On reaching the residence of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, Ac/MO, asked me that what all wrong the petitioner have been teaching to her son. At the same time Madam told Ct/Dvr Raj Kumar to slap the petitioner 10 times. After that she ordered the petitioner to be present at Ftr Hospital at 0930 hrs in uniform. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Ftr Hospital after dropping his son at his house and stood in front of the officer of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MNO. There, Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, Ac/MO did not talk to him and then Nursing Assistant Madhu Sudan Sheel came out and told the petitioner to go and report at Sector GD as per the orders of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaulr Ac/MO. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to serve at Sector Sos' mess. Accordingly, the petitioner reported for duty at Sector Sos mess. On the same day at about 1730 hrs, the petitioner got movement order from Sector HQ to GD of 133 Bn BSF. The petitioner reported at GD of Sector HQ Silchar at about 2000 hrs. While the petitioner was coming back with bag and baggage, he met Dr Manjit Singh, AC/MO, husband of Dr Navgeet Kaur coming from opposite direction and therefore the petitioner wished him by saying "JAI HIND SIR", but he did not reply and without saying anything started beating the petitioner with kicks and punches and therefore, the caught hold of the hand of Dr. Manjit Singh, AC/MO and asked him in a loud voice why he is beating the petitioner. At that time, troops of BSF as well as 12 Bn CRPF were also standing there. In the meantime Shri Kuljit Singh, AC reached there and virtually separated the petitioner and Dr Manjit Singh from each other with his hands and ordered me to go to GD office,. Accordingly, the petitioner went to GD office while he was sitting in GD office, Dr Manjit Singh, AC/MO again came there from another door and started pinching him from behind. Due to beating by kicks and punches the petitioner got injury on his private parts and also on thumb of right foot. The whole episode of beating was witnessed by BHM and SI (Adjt) of 133 Bn BSF along with other BSF personal present there.
3.6 The petitioner states and submits that in the meanwhile the petitioner was given the charge sheet and was tried on three charges viz. (I) under Section 20(a) and (ii) and (iii) under Section 24(a) of the BSF Act for using criminal force to his superior officer, disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind and for attempt to commit disgraceful conduct of an Page 4 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT unnatural kind respectively. In the first charge it was alleged that petitioner at Tac HQ 133 Bn, BSF,k Gularthal, Imphal (East), Manipur at about 16.00 hours on 1st April 2008 caught the collar of Dr Manjit Singh, AC/MO. In the second and third charges it is alleged that on 14th March 2008 the petitioner while performing the duties of Security Aide to Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kau,r AC/MO of Sector HQ BSF, Gandhinagar committed unnatural act with the son of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur.
3.7 The petitioner states and submit that the gist of the complaint filed by the complainant, PW 1 is that on 14.03.2008, at about 1930 hrs. when she reched her residence in Gandhinagar Campus she found that the petitioner was playing with her son. Thereafter, when she started playing with her son, during the play her son inserted his tongue inside her mouth, touched her tongue and kissed on her lips. She was surprised with such strange behaviour of her son and inquired from him as to who taught him this game. He son immediately went to the kitchen and brought two milk mugs and put them on the bed. Thereafter, he removed his lower and underwear and asked her to do the same as the petitioner also used to do the same. She asked her son to continue explaining the game. Her son revealed that the petitioner used to play and touch his penis and also motivated him to do the same by touching his (petitioner's) penis with his hand and lips with a view to stimulate him. The petitioner used to touch his perineum area and penis. He further described that during the game some juice used to come out from penis of petitioner and same was put in the mugs by him and they used to drink it. She was shocked and out of curiosity she checked the genital organs of her son. She noticed some abrasions, boils and redness around the perineum area of her son. She asked telephonically Constable / Dvr Raj Kumar, present in the Hospital, to bring the petitioner to her residence the next day. Accordingly, at about 0800 hrs the said driver brought the petitioner to her residence. She enquired from the petitioner as to what all he had been teaching to her son. The petitioner denied everything, stating that he taught nothing wrong and at the same time he begged forgiveness by touching her feet. Thereafter, she got her son examined by Dr. Jayawant K and thereafter lodged the complaint against the petitioner.
3.7 The petitioner states and submits that the trial was conducted by the General Security Court and the Court examined 13 prosecution witnesses. After appraisal of the evidence on record and considering the evidence on record the General Security Court convicted the petitioner for first and second charges while acquitted him for the third charge. The Court sentenced the petitioner to suffer RI for four years and dismissal from service.
3.8 The petitioner states and submits that the petitioner has challenged the said judgment and order of the General Security Court by way of filing petition before the appellate authority. The said petitioner was rejected by Page 5 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT the Director General, Boarder Security Force vide order dated 21st September 2009."
3 The chargesheet issued to the writ applicant under Rule 53(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1968 (for short, the 'Rules 1968') is as under:
4 The findings recorded by the Commandant on conclusion of the trial are as under:
"FINDINGS The Court finds that No. 01144146 Constable Nanuki Prasad of 133 Sn BSF, attached with 107 En BSF is Guilty of First and Second Charge and Not Guilty of Third Charge.
BRIEF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FIRST CHARGE FIRST ISSUE 'That, Constable Nanuki Prasad at Tac HQ 133 Bn BSF, Gularthal, Imphal (East) Manipur on 1.4.2008 at about 1600 hrs caught hold of the collar of IRLA No.10385982 Dr Manjit Singh, ACIMO of 133 Bn BSF, thereby used criminal force to his superior ofiicer."
Court believes the version of Shri Kuljit Singh. AC (Now DC) (PW5), Sl/Adjt Vijender Kumar (PW6) , HC/BHM Purshotam Lal (PW7) and Dr Manjit Singh. AC/MO (PW10) that accused Const Nanuki Prasad caught hold the collar of IRLA No.10385982 Dr Manjit Singh, AC/MO on 1st Apr 2008 at about 1600 hrs at Tac HQ 133 Bn BSF, Gularthal, Imphal (East) Manipur.
Court does not believe the version of accused wherein he stated that Dr Manjit Singh, AC/MO had beaten him by kicking and punching, without asking anything from him. Accused failed to produce any defence witness despite the fact that above incident took place at Tac HQ in front of GD Office. where number of unit personnel were available. Hence Court finds this issue as proved.
SECOND ISSUE Page 6 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT "That the accused had committed this offence by using criminal force to his superior officer."
Court believes the version of Sl/Adjt Vijender Kumar (PW6) HC/BHM Purshotam Lal (PW~7) that Dr Manjit Singh AC/MO is a superior officer to the accused. Moreover accused himself admits the same in his own statement on oath before the Court, Moreover, Const Nanuki Prasad (accused) and Dr Manjit Singh Assistant Commandant/Medical Officer both were serving at the time of incident in the same battalion and as per the rank structure of the BSF an Assistant Commandant / Medical Officer is superior to a Constable. Hence Court believes that Const Nanuki Prasad had committed the offence of using the criminal force to his superior officer. Court take his charge as proved.
SECOND CHARGE FIRST ISSUE "That the accused on or about 14'" March 2008 was performing the security aide duties to IRLA No.10385999 Dr(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO of SHQ BSF Gandhinagar."
Court believes the version Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur (PW1) Const Nissar Ahmed (PW2), Const G Satish (PW3) and Const/Dvr Raj Kumar (PW4) that Const Nanuki Prasad(accused) was performing the duties of Security Aide to IRLA No. 10385999 Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, Assistant Commandant/Medical Officer of SHQ BSF Gandhinagar.
This issue is not a disputed one and not contested by the defence. In fact accused and Smt Saroj Kumari(DW3) admitted in their statement that Const Nanuki Prasad(accused) was performing the duties of Security Aide to Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO. Hence court take this issue as proved.
SECOND ISSUE "That the accused while performing the security aide duties played with the penis of Master Ojaswin aged about 3 ½ years S/o Dr(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO with indecent intention."
Court believes the testimony of Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO(PW1), Const G Satish (PW3) and Master Ojaswin (PW11) that accused while performing the duties of Security Aide played with the penis of Master Ojaswin aged about 1/2 yrs, son of Dr(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO with indecent intension.
Page 7 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENTCourt does not believe the version of the accused, he flatly denied this charge and instead he leveled fabricated, false and baseless allegations against Dr (Mrs)Navgeet Kaur. AC/MOshout having «on her in e compromising position with Genet P Venklt Red on 13'" March zoos which he fails to establish. Hence court take this issue as proved.
THIRD ISSUE "That the above act of accused amounts to disgraceful conduct of on indecent kind."
Court believes that Const Nanukl Prasad (accused) was while performing the Security Aide duties to IRLA No.10385999 Dr(Mrs)Navgeet Kaur. AC/MO of SHQ BSF Gandhinaga, played with the penis of Master Ojaswin aged about 3 ½ years and persuaded him to touch his penis to get the sexual arousal which amounts to disgraceful conduct of indecent kind. Hence Court finds the accused Guilty of the charge.
THIRD CHARGE FIRST ISSUE "That the accused on or about 14th Mar 2008 was performing the duties of security aide to IRLA No.10385999 Dr(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur. AC/MO of SHQ BSF Gandhinagar".
Court believes the version Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur. AC/MO (PW1), Const Nissar Ahmed(PW2) Const G Satish (PW3) and ConstIDvr Raj Kumar( PW4) that Const Nanuki Prasad was performing the duties of Security Aide to iRLA No.10385999 Dr(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, Assistant Commandant/Medical Officer of SHQ BSF Gandhinagar.
This issue is not disputed and not contested by the defence. in fact Ct Nanuki Prasad (accused) and Smt Saro) Kumari ( DWS) have admitted in their statement that Const Nanuki Prasad was performing duties of Security Aide to Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur. AC/MO. Hence Court takes this issue as proved.
SECOND ISSUE "That the accused while performing the security aide duties attempted to insert his penis to commit an unnatural act on the person of Master Ojawin aged about 3 ½ years S/o Dr (Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, AC/MO of SHQ Page 8 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT BSF Gandhinagar".
Court does not believe the version of Dr Jaywant K. AC/M (PW09) that the abrasion, boils and redness around the anus region of Master Ojaswin was caused due to attempt to insert penis by the accused. Court believes that prosecution failed to establish this issue beyond reasonable doubt. Hence Court take this issue as not proved.
THIRD ISSUE "That the above act of the accused amounts to disgraceful conduct of an unnatural kind."
Since second issue of the charge not proved beyond the reasonable doubt, Court believes that this charge is not proved. Hence Court finds accused not guilty of this charge.
ANNOUNCMENT OF FINDINGS The Court being reopened, the accused is again brought. The findings along with its reasons are read in open court and the finds are announced as being subject to confirmation.
Sd/ sd/
(JASVINDER SINGH) (SUHIL KUMAR)
LAW OFFICER GDEII/DC COMMANDANT
GSFC TRIAL GSFC TRIAL"
5 The proceedings on conviction recorded are as under:
"PROCEEDING ON COVICTION No.88005692 SI/Min Sukhbir Singh of 107 Bn BSF is duly affirmed duly examined by the prosecutor.
I joined 107 Bn BSF from SHQ BSF Bhuj on 1st Sept 2008. Since then I am performing the duties of Estt Clerk in 107 Bn BSF.Page 9 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
Q17 What records have you to produce in proof of
Question to formal convictions against the accused and his
the witness character?
A17 I produce a statement certified under the hand
Answer by of the officer having custody of Battalion records
the witness in respect of No.01144146 Constable Nanuki
Prasad of 133 Bn BSF attached with 107 Bn
BSF.
Exhibit - The statement is read, marked Exhibit - 'GG'
'GG' signed by the Presiding Officer and attached to
the proceedings.
Q18 Is the accused, the same person named in the
Question to statement you have read?
the witness
A18 Yes.
Answer by
the witness
Q19 Have you compared the contents of above
Question to statement with the Battalion records?
the witness
A19 Yes.
Answer by
the witness
Q20 Are they true extract from the Battalion records,
Question to and is the statement of entries in the defaulter
the witness sheet a fair and true summary of these entries?
A20 Yes.
Answer by
the witness
NO CROSSEAMINATION BY THE DEFENDING OFFICER
The witness does not desire his statement to be read over to him. Provisions of BSF Rules 89 is complied with.
Q21 Do you wish to address the Court in mitigation Question to of sentence? the accused Page 10 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT A21 I have not done any thing wrong and I will not Answer by accept any punishment. the accused The Court is The Court is closed for consideration of sentence. closed 6 The findings and sentence came to be confirmed by the confirming officer are as under: SENTENCE
The Court sentences the accused No.01144146 Constable Nanuki Prasad of 133 Bn BSF, attached with 107 Bn BSF Dantiwada (Gujarat).
"To suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years" and to be dismissed from service".
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE The Court is The Court being reopened, the accused is reopened brought before it. The sentence is announced in open Court as being subject to confirmation.
Signed at HQ 107 Bn BSF, Dantiwada (Gujarat) this 09th day of March 2009.
Sd/ sd/
(JASVINDER SINGH) (SUHIL KUMAR)
LAW OFFICER GDEII/DC COMMANDANT
GSFC TRIAL GSFC TRIAL"
"I confirm the findings and sentence of the Court. I further direct that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment shall be carried out in civil prison.
sd/
Place : Gandhinagar. (G S Shekhawat)
Page 11 of 44
R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 17/04/09. IG BSF, Gujarat Frontier.
(Confirming Officer)"
7 It appears that thereafter, the writ applicant preferred a petition
or a representation in the form of an appeal to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The order passed by the Director General, Border Security Force rejecting the petition is as under:
"No.06/40/09/SP/CLO(D&L)/ Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Directorate General Boarder Security Force (Disc & Lit Branch) 2nd Floor, Block No.10 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 10003.
Dated, the 21 Sep' 2009 ORDER Sub : DISPOSAL OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY NO.01144146 CT NANUKI PRASAD OF 133 BN BSF AGAINST HIS TRIAL BY GENERAL SECURITY FORCE COURT.
Petition dated 11.06.2009 submitted by No. 01144146 Ct. Nanuki Prasad of 133 Bn BSF against his trial by General Security Force Court and other connected documents have been examined by the Director General, Border Security Force carefully.
2. The petitioner was tried by GSFC on three charges; first charge under Section 20(a) and second & third charges under Sections 24(a) of the BSF Act for "using criminal force to his superior officer" "disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind" and for attempt to commit disgraceful conduct of an unnatural kind" respectively. Particulars of the first charge were that the petitioner at Tac HQ 133 Bn BSF, Gularthal,1mphal (East), Manipur on 1.4.2008 at about 1600 hrs caught the collar of lRLA No.10385982 Dr. Manjit Singh, Assistant Commandant / Medical Officer of 133 En BSF. Allegations under the second charge were that the petitioner at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on or about 14 March 2008, while performing duties of security aide to IRLA No.10385999 Dr.(MIS) Navgeet Kaur, Assistant Commandant} Medical Officer of Sector HQ BSF Page 12 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Gandhinagal' with indecent intention, played with penis of Master Ojaswin, aged about 3 ½ years son pf Dr.(Mrs) Navgeen Kaur. Assistant Commandant Medical Officer. Particulars of the third charge were that the petitioner at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on or about 14 March 2008, while performing duties of security aide to lRLA No. 10385999 Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur,. Assistant Commandant / Medical Officer of Sector HQ BSF Gandhinagar, attempted to commit an unnatural act on the person of Master Ojaswin, aged about 3 ½ years son of Dr.(Mrs) Navgeen Kaur. Assistant Commandant/ Medical Officer by trying to insert his penis in the anus of the said Master Ojaswin. The trial proceeded on plea of 'Not Guilty' by the petitioner on all the charges. The court examined 13 prosecution witnesses, the petitioner gave his statement on oath as a witness, produced 03 defence witnesses and replied to the questions asked by the court under BSF Rule 93(2). The Court after due appraisal of evidence on record and having considered defence put forward by the petitioner found him 'Guilty' of first and and second charges and 'Not Guilty' of third charge. The Court recorded brief reasons in support of its findings and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and dismissal from service. Findings and sentence of the court were confirmed by IG BSF Gujarat and the petitioner was committed to District Jail, Palanpur, Gujarat on 18 April 2009 for the purpose of undergoing the sentence awarded by the court.
3. The petitioner made following submissions in his petition:
i) that PW1 Dr. Navgeet Kaur, mother of alleged victim, did not make any complaint on the day of the alleged incident i.e. 14.03.2008 and it may be inferred that the complaint made afterwards is an after thought and cannot be relied upon.
ii) that whatever was detected in the MLC of her child was due to the boils of his inner thigh and no sexual exploitation and molestation was proved.
iii) that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident and the case is based on hearsay evidence only.
iv) that the conduct / behaviour / attitude of the child of tender age is to be considered while relying upon his statement and the precautions should be taken in this regard. Prosecution failed to show that the child was mature enough and was not tutored while he deposed and that there was no other negative influence upon the mind of the child by visualizing the electronic media and smart box which sometimes show some obscene and blue films;
Page 13 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENTv) that PW5 Dr. Majeet Singh uttered words of provocation which led the petitioner to catch collar of his superior officer. Since it is an admitted fact that there were some personal matters in which both the parties got excited and came to fighting and it is not known which party was attacking and which party was defending. Hence criminal force cannot be attributable herein and every body has got the right of self defence.
vi) that findings of the court are without any legal and admissible evidence. The case solely depends upon the circumstances and there is no independent corroboration to connect the petitioner with the allegations.
vii) that the witnesses are superior officers of the petitioner and hence they are in a better position to use their influence in order to implicate the petitioner whereas the trial court failed to appreciated the version of defence witnesses; and,
viii) that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind in deciding the matter but rather relied upon the interpretation of law officer without paying any attention to the evidence of defence.
The petitioner has prayed to set aside the findings and sentence of the court and to release him from judicial custody of Central Jail, Sabarmati, Gujarat.
4. The trial proceedings and other connected documents have been examined thoroughly. The trial proceedings are generally in order and findings of the court are sustainable.
5. As per PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, during December 2007 to March 2008 the petitioner was working as security aide to her and used to look after her son Master Ojaswin. On 14.03.2008, at about 1930 hrs, she reached her residence in Gandhinagar Campus where petitioner was playing with her son. On being asked by petitioner she gave him permission to go alongwith his son to dental Hospital Gandhinagar on 15.03.2008. After that she started playing with her son. During the play her son inserted his tongue inside her mouth, touched her tongue and kissed on her lips. She was surprised with such strange behaviour of her son and inquired from him as to who taught him this game. At that point of time. her son revealed that he used to play this type of game with the Page 14 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner in her absence. She asked her son to tell more about the game. Her son immediately went to the kitchen and brought two milk mugs and put them on the bed. Thereafter, he removed his lower and underwear and asked her to do the same as the petitioner also used to do the same. She asked her son to continue explaining the game. Her son revealed that the petitioner used to play and touch his penis and also motivated him to do the same by touching his (petitioner's) penis with his hand and lips with a view to stimulate him. The petitioner used to touch his perineum area and penis. He further described that during the game some juice used to come out from penis of the petitioner and same was put in the mugs by him and they used to drink it. She was shocked and out of curiosity she checked the genital organs of her son. She noticed some abrasions, boils and redness around the perineum area of her son. She asked telephonically Constable/Dvr Raj Kumar, present in the Hospital, to bring the petitioner to her residence the next day. Accordingly, at about 0800 hrs the said driver brought the petitioner to her residence. She enquired from the petitioner as to what all he had been ! teaching to her son. The petitioner denied everything, stating that he taught nothing wrong and at the same time he begged forgiveness by touching her feet. Thereafter. she got her son examined by Dr. Jayawant K. On 15.03.2008 while she was in the hospital she noticed the petitioner talking to Const. Nissar Ahmed. On being enquired, Const. Nissar Ahmed did not reveal anything in the beginning but on her insistence, he told that the petitioner said. "MAINE TO JO KARNA THA W0 KAR DlYA. BACHCHA TO KUCHH BOLEGA NAHIN, AB MADAM KO JO KARNA HA1 KAR L ". She also informed telephonically to her husband who was posted in Manipur in B3 Bn BSF. Once, Const Satish who was working as security aide with her husband, had suggested her to change the petitioner from security aide as his activities were not good.
6. PW2 Constable Nissar Ahmed stated that on 5.03.2008, in the morning he was present in the hospital and happened to meet the petitioner who was in uniform. Seeing the petitioner in uniform, out of curiosity, this witness asked it he was proceeding on leave but the petitioner did not reply. He again asked the petitioner if he had started runner duties in the hospital, but the latter did not reply. However, after his asking time and again, the petitioner said, "THORA PANGA HO GAYA HA1" and simultaneously, took him out side the Hospital and informed with hesitation that on 14.03.2008 he had held the penis of Master Ojaswin and at the same time asked him to hold his penis. But suddenly, "MADAR CHOD MADAM KAHAN SE AA GAYI AUR MUJHE DEKH LIYA". Alter that incident, Dr. Madam abused him and sent out of her residence and ordered to see her in the hospital in uniform on 15.03.2008 and that is why he was present in uniform. He also told him that he was unable to understand what to do. This witness suggested him to apologise to madam as he had committed a grave mistake. The petitioner told that if he Page 15 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT apologized before Dr. Madam she would definitely ask him to give in writing and then he would be in deep trouble. The petitioner further told that she had already warned him to lodge complaint against him to Comdt and if that happened he would also write to DIG and IG. This witness again suggested to him to apologise to madam but the petitioner told that she would ask him in writing and he would not do so as "BACHHA T O BOLEGA NAHAIN, TO MADAM MERA KYA KAR LEGI". Later on, he told about this conversation to PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur on being asked by her.
7. PW3 Constable G. Satish said that while working as security aide at the residence of PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, during the month of Dec'2007, he heard the petitioner telling Master Ojaswin to shake his penis, "LAND KO HILAO'. He told the petitioner that this was wrong and he should not do it. He proceeded on temp duty to Delhi during the month of Jan 2008 and before leaving, he suggested to PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur to remove the petitioner from security aide duties as his behaviour was not good.
8. As per PW4 Constable/Dvr Raj Kumar, on 15.03.2008 he took the petitioner to the residence of PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur at about 0800 hrs. There he found her weeping and on his query, she asked him to inquire from the petitioner as to what he had done to her child. This witness enquired from the petitioner who replied that he had done nothing. After that PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur ordered him to take the petitioner away from there and asked the petitioner to be present in Frontier Hospital in uniform at about 0900 hrs. She further said that she would report the matter to DIG and IG. At that point of time, the petitioner tried to touch her feet by saying, "MADAM MUJHE MAFF KAR DO".
9. PWll Master Ojaswin stated that the petitioner used to play with him "NanguPangu" game after removing trousers of both of them. The petitioner used to pay with his penis. The petitioner used to take out juice from his penis. His mother used to clean his stool and not the petitioner. His penis was small and that of the accused was big.
10. PW9 Dr. Jayawant K stated that on 15.03.2008 he examined the son of PWl Dr.(Mrs) Navgeet Kaur, namely Master Ojaswin, and found abrasion over upper parts of both thighs, two boils of 2cms x 1cm on upper thigh, 3 to 4 small boils over genital region and redness around penis region. He prescribed medicines and pain killer for the same.
Page 16 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT11. It is in evidence through PW1O Dr. Manjit Singh stated that on 15.03.2008 when he contacted his wife on telephone, she was weeping and on being asked, she informed that the petitioner had behaved indecently with Master Ojaswin and she told him the details. After that he rang up the petitioner on his mobile phone. The petitioner picked uP the phone but did not reply. He tried again but the petitioner again did not answer the Phone call. He lodged a written complaint to the Unit Comdt on 02.04.2008. Before that, he had been trying continuously to contact the petitioner on his mobile phone to inquire about the matter from him. On 01.04.20908, he was at Tac HQ to met the Comdt. At about 1600 hrs he saw the petitioner there. He inquired as to why was he not picking up his phone for the last 10 days. The petitioner replied that he did not feel the necessity to attend his phone. He kept on inquiring from the petitioner about his indecent behaviour. Near the GD office he asked, "TUJHE AISA KARTE SHARAM NAHI AAYE" to which the petitioner replied, "MAINE APNE LEVEL PAR JO KARNA THA KAR LIYA, AB APKO JO KARNA HAI KAR LO". This witness told the accused that he would complain to the Comdt against him. Suddenly, the petitioner held his collar and in order to free himself he also held his hand. In the meantime, other persons reached there and the petitioner left his collar.
12. PW5 Shri Kuljit Singh stated that on 01.04.2008 he saw the petitioner talking to PW10 Dr. Manjit Singh in loud voice near the office of the Comdt. He asked them not to talk loudly near the office of the Comdt. and further directed them to go towards GD office. After 2/3 minutes he again heard loud voice. He came out and went towards the GD Room, where he saw that the petitioner was holding collar of PW10 Dr. Manjit Singh and the latter was holding hand of the former. He shouted, "YEH KYA KAR RAHE HO" and both of them disengaged themselves.
13. PW6 SI Vijender Kumar stated that on 01.04.2008 at about 1600 hrs he saw the petitioner and PW10 Dr. Manjit Singh talking in front of GD office. He heard PW10 Dr. Manjit Singh saying, "TUJHE AISA KARTE HUYE SHARAM NAHIN AYEE". The petitioner replied in a loud voice, "MAINE JO KARNA THA KAR LIYA, AB AAPNE JO KARNA HAI KAR LO". After that PW10 Dr. Manjit Singh told the petitioner that he would report the matter to higher authorities, Suddenly the petitioner caught collar of PW10 Dr. Manjit Singth and Dr. Manjit Singh held petitioner's hand with his right hand. In the meantime, PW5 Shri Kuljit Singh came out of the Comdt's office and said, "YEH KYA KAR RAHE HO". Hearing that, both separated from each other. HC Purshottam Lal (PW7) corroborated the above facts.
14. In View of the above direct as well as circumstantial evidence and admission of the petitioner', findings of the court are sustainable and Page 17 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT submission of the petitioner are untenable.
15. The petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case at all stages of the disciplinary proceedings strictly in accordance with BSF Act and Rules. He was given opportunity to cross examine witnesses, to make a statement in his defence and to produce defence witnesses while being heard by his Commandant under BSF Rule 45, «bring preparation of ROE and during the trial and no prejudice has been caused to him ii that regard. The petitioner had 07 years and about 07 months service on the day of his carnelian and he was not punished earlier. Notwithstanding previous records of the petitioner, the crime committed by him against a child of about 3 ½ years old is not only heinous but inhuman as well. Further, the offence of use of criminal force against a superior officer in a disciplined Force like BSF is also grave. A person involved in such heady and indisciplined acts does not deserve any leniency.
16. In view of the foregoing and after careful consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case, the Director General has rejected the petition submitted by petitioner being devoid of merit.
Sd/ (B P VASHIST) CHIEF LAW OFFICER (D&L) / DIG FOR DIRECTOR GENERAL, BSF."
8 On 29th October 2010, this Court passed the following order:
"1. RULE. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as against sentence to undergo imprisonment for four years, the petitioner has already served out sentence of 18 months. Moreover, there is no possibility of hearing the main matter, in the near future.
3. Considering the above aspects of the matter, the petitioner is ordered to be RELEASED on BAIL, on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/ and on conditions that HE SHALL,
1. SURRENDER his passport, if he has one;
2. NOT leave the STATE without prior permission of the Court;
3. remain PRESENT, as and when so directed."Page 18 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
9 Mr. J.T. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the writ applicant could not have been tried by the General Security Force Court in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act, 1968'). Mr. Trivedi would submit that the writ applicant could not be said to be on active duty at the time when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. Mr. Trivedi submitted that Section 80 of the Act, 1968 provides for choice between the Criminal Court and Security Force Court. According to Mr. Trivedi, when a Criminal Court and Security Force Court has the concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the offence, it is within the discretion of the Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General, as the case may be, within whose command, the accused is serving or such other officer to decide before which Court the proceedings should be instituted. This discretion, according to Mr. Trivedi, has not been exercised judiciously and no reasons have been assigned as to why the Inspector General thought fit to put the writ applicant before the General Security Force Court and not the Criminal Court.
10 In such circumstances, according to Mr. Trivedi, the order of conviction and sentence as well as dismissal from service could be termed as illegal or erroneous in law and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
11 On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Nirzar Desai, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Union of India. Mr. Desai would submit that the facts of this case are very gross. The allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are very serious. Mr. Desai would submit that no error, not to speak of any error Page 19 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT of law could be said to have been committed by the authority in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Mr. Desai submitted that the matter has also been looked into by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and in such circumstances, no further interference is warranted at the end of this Court in this petition.
12 Mr. Desai has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the respondents:
"4 I say and submit that the petitioner herein was charged with serious offences under the BSF Act 1968 and he was tried by General Security Force Court under the BSF Act 1968 and during the trial, 13 prosecution witnesses were examined and upon appreciation of the evidences, 2 charges were proved and one charge was not proved, the details whereof is set out hereinafter. I say and submit that the order of conviction was challenged by way of an appeal (petition). The petitioner was examined in details and on appreciation of the contentions, the competent authority rejected the petition being devoid of merit. It is submitted that the said order passed in the petition is challenged by way of the above mentioned Special Criminal Application. Thus, the petition raises the question of reappreciation of the evidences in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. However, I deny all the allegations, contentions and submissions raised in the petition on various grounds, contained in para NO.4 of the petition. I deny the allegations, contentions and submissions raised therein. At the outset, I beg to submit as follows:
5 It is submitted that No.011441146 ExConstable Nanuki Prasad was enrolled in BSF as a Constable on 11082001. After completion of basic training, he joined 133 Bn BSF on 13092002. He was tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC) on three charges : first charge under Section 20(a) of BSF Act, second charge under Section 24(a) of BSF Act and third charge u/s 42 read with 24 (a) of the BSF Act for "using criminal force to superior officer". "disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind" and for "attempt to commit disgraceful conduct of an unnatural kind" respectively. Particulars of the first charge were that the petitioner at Tac HQ 133 Bn BSF, Gularthal, Imphal (East), Manipur on 142008 at about 1600 hours caught the collar of Dr. Manjit Singh, AC/Medical Officer of 133 Bn BSF. The particulars of the second charge were that the petitioner at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on 1432008 while performing the duties of security aide to Dr. [Mrs.] Navgeet Kaur, Assistant Page 20 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Commandant / Medical Officer of Sector HQ BSF Gandhinagar with indecent intention, played with penis of Master Ojaswin, aged about 3 and half years, son of Dr. [Mrs.] Navgeet Kaur, A.C./M.O. The particulars of third charge were that the petitioner at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on or about 1432008, while performing the duties of security aide to Dr. [Mrs.] Navgeet Kaur, Assistant Commandant / Medical Officer of Sector HQ BSF Gandhinagar attempted to commit an unnatural act on the person of Master Ojaswin by trying to insert his penis in the anus of said Master Ojaswin.
6 The trial proceeded on plea of "not guilty" by the petitioner on all the three charges. The Court examined thirteen prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses. The Court, after due appraisal of the evidences on record and haing considered defense put forward by the petitioner found him "guilty" of third charge. The court recorded brief reasons in support of its findings and sentenced the petitioner to "SUFFER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR FOUR YEARS AND DISMISSAL FROM SERVCE" on 932009 and the petitioner was committed to District Jail, Palanpur, Gujarat on 1842009 for the purpose of undergoing the sentence awarded 7 The petitioner had served a statutory petition dated 11062009 against the sentence awarded to him by the GSFC which was examined y the Director General BSF in detail and after due application of mind, the Director General BSF in detail and after due application of mind, the Director General BSF had rejected the above statutory petition vide letter dated Nol492126 dated 2292009. The petitioner was informed accordingly regarding rejection of his statutory petition rejection of his statutory petition vide HQ Director General BSF, New Delhi letter No.492 dtd. 22092009.
8 I, therefore, say and submit that the contentions made in various grounds of the petition by the petitioner do no deserve any consideration by this Hon'ble Court and the petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. I say and submit that the petitioner intends to get reconsidered, reevaluated and reexamined the evidences on record by this Hon'ble Court at a stage of a petition wherein after a fullfledged trial, the petitioner was convicted and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was challenged by way of a petition before the Director General, BSF, Ministry of Home, Government of India, which came to be decided by the order dated 2292009. I say and submit that the said petition has been rejected by the competent authority i.e. the Director General, BSF for the reasons recorded therein. I, therefore, say and submit that the present petition has no merits which call for the exercise of the extraordinary powers by this Court and therefore, the present petition, deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court."Page 21 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
13 In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Desai prayed that there being no merit in this petition, the same be rejected.
14 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authority committed any error in passing the impugned order.
15 The entire controversy revolves around the question whether the Inspector General, Gujarat FTR, BSF (Convening Officer) was justified in taking the decision that the petitioner herein shall be tried by a General Security Force Court, and that too, without assigning any reasons in passing such order.
16 Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, I must look into the few relevant provisions of law. Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1968 defines the terms "active duty". The same is reproduced herein below:
"2(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "active duty", in relation to a person subject to this Act, means any duty as a member of the Force during the period in which such person is attached to, or forms part of, a unit of the Force
(i) which is engaged in operations against an enemy, or
(ii) which is operating at a picket or engaged on patrol or other guard duty along the borders of India, and includes duty by such person during any period declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette as a period of active duty with reference to any area in which any person or class of persons subject to this Act may be serving;"
17 Section 20 of the Act, 1968 talks about striking or threatening superior officers. The same is reproduced herein below:
Page 22 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"20. Striking or threatening superior officers. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,
(a) uses criminal force to or assaults his superior officer; or
(b) uses threatening language to such officer; or
(c) uses insubordinate language to such officer;
shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, (A) if such officer is at the time in the execution of his office or, if the offence is committed on active duty, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and (B) in other cases, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
Provided that in the case of an offence specified in clause (c), the imprisonment shall not exceed five years."
18 Section 24 of the Act, 1968 talks about certain forms of disgraceful conduct. Section 24 is reproduced herein below:
"24. Certain forms of disgraceful conduct. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,
(a) is guilty of any disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind; or
(b) malingers, or feigns, or produces disease or infirmity in himself or intentionally delays his cure or aggravates his disease or infirmity; or
(c) with intent to render himself or any other person unfit for service, voluntarily causes hurt to himself or that person, shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
19 Section 46 of the Act, 1968 is with regard to the civil offence. It reads as under:
Page 23 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"46. Civil offences. Subject to the provisions of section 47, any person subject to this Act who at any place in, or beyond India, commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section shall be liable to be tried by a Security Force Court and, on conviction, be punishable as follows, that is to say,
(a) if the offence is one which would be punishable under any law in force in India with death, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment, assigned for the offence, by the aforesaid law and such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and
(b) in any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment, assigned for the offence by the law in force in India, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
20 Section 47 of the Act, 1968 provides that the civil offences shall not be triable by a Security Force Court. Section 47 reads as under:
"47. Civil offences not triable by a Security Force Court. A person subject to this Act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation to, a person not subject to this Act shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by a Security Force Court, unless he commits any of the said offences,
(a) while on active duty; or
(b) at any place outside India; or
(c) at any place specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf."
21 Section 80 is with regard to the choice before the Criminal Court and Security Force Court. Section 80 reads as under:
"80. Choice between criminal court and Security Force Court. When a criminal court and a Security Force Court have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the DirectorGeneral, Page 24 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT or the InspectorGeneral or the Deputy InspectorGeneral within whose command the accused person is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed, to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted, and, if that officer decides that they shall be instituted before a Security Force Court, to direct that the accused person shall be detained in Force custody."
22 There is no much dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner herein could not be said to be on active duty while he is alleged to have committed the offence. However, when an offence committed by an employee of the Border Security is triable by a Criminal Court and also by Security Force Court constituted under the Act, 1968, and both the Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to try the case, the provisions of Sections 80 and 81 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 provide a satisfactory machinery to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction.
23 The moot question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the authority concerned was justified to take a decision that the petitioner be tried by the Border Security Force Court, and if at all the authority thought fit to exercise its discretion in that regard, then whether the authority was obliged to assign any reason in this regard. Let me put it in a little different manner. Even if no reasons have been assigned by the authority concerned while taking the decision that the petitioner be tried by the Border Security Force Court then whether there is anything on record to indicate any application of mind in this regard.
24 To answer the aforesaid question, I must look into the Rule 41 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. Chapter VI of the Rules, 1969 is with regard to the choice of jurisdiction between Security Force Court and Criminal Court. It reads as under:
Page 25 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"CHAPTERVI CHOICE OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN SECURIT FORCE COURT AND CRIMINAL COURT
41. Trial of cases either by security force court or criminal court (1) Where an offence is triable both by a criminal court and a Security Force Court, an officer referred to in section 80 may
(i) (a) Where the offence is committed by the accused in the course of the performance of his duty as a member of the Force; or
(b) Where the offence is committed in relation to property belonging to the Government or the Force or a person subject to the Act; or
(c) Where the offence is committed against a person subject to the Act, direct that any person subject to the Act, who is alleged to have committed such an offence, be tried by a Court, and
(ii) in any other case, decide whether or not it would be necessary in the interests of discipline to claim for trial by a Court any person subject to the Act who is alleged to have committed such an offence.
(2) In taking a decision to claim an offender for trial by a Court, an officer referred to in section 80 may take into account all or any of the following factors, namely:
(a) The offender is on active duty or has been warned for active duty and it is felt that he is trying to avoid such duty;
(b) the offender is a young person undergoing training and the offence is not a serious one and the trial of the offender by a criminal court would materially affect his training.
(c) the offender can, in view of the nature of the case, be dealt with summarily under the Act.
42. Cases not to be tried by Security Force Court Without prejudice to the provisions of subrule (1) of rule 41, an offender may not be claimed for trial by a Security Force Court: Page 26 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
(a) where the offence is committed by him alongwith any other person not subject to the Act whose identity is known; or
(b) where the offence is committed by him while on leave or during absence without leave."
25 In the aforesaid context, let me go through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and others [(2013) 6 SCC 333]. I may quote the relevant observations as under:
"8 The expression 'active duty' has been defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, it reads as follows:
"2. Definitions.(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)"active duty", in relation to a person subject to this Act, means any duty as a member of the Force during the period in which such person is attached to, or forms part of, a unit of the Force
(i) which is engaged in operations against an enemy, or
(ii) which is operating at a picket or engaged on patrol or other guard duty along the borders of India, and includes duty by such person during any period declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette as a period of active duty with reference to any area in which any person or class of persons subject to this Act may be serving;"
9 Aforesaid provision makes the duty of the nature specified therein to be active duty and includes duty declared by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette. From a plain reading of the aforesaid, it is evident that any duty as a member of the Force and enumerated in clauses (i) and (ii), i.e., engaged in operations against an enemy or operating at a picket or engaged on patrol or other guard duty along the borders of India shall come within the definition of active duty. It shall also include such duty by the member of the Force as active duty declared by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.
10 The Central Government by Notification SO.1473(E) dated 8th of Page 27 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT August, 2007 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, had made a declaration that the duty of every personnel serving in the State as mentioned in the said Notification for the period 01st of July 2007 to 30th of June, 2010, shall be 'active duty'. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is at Serial Number 16 of the said Notification.
11 It is common ground that offence committed is a civil offence which is triable by a Criminal Court and at the time of commission of the offence, the accused persons were not engaged in any operation against any enemy or operating at a picket or engaged on patrolling or other guard duty along the borders of India. According to the appellants, accused persons were not engaged in the duty of the nature specified above pursuant to any lawful command, therefore, they cannot be said to be on active duty so as to give jurisdiction to the Force to try them before Security Force Court. The learned Solicitor General does not join issue and accepts that accused persons were not performing duty of the nature mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, but, according to him, in view of declaration of the Central Government, their act shall come within the inclusive definition of active duty.
12 There is no connection, not even the remotest one, between their duty as members of the Force and the crime in question. The situs of the crime was neither under Force control nor the victim of crime was in any way connected with the Force. But, for the notification, these could have been sufficient to answer that accused persons were not on active duty at the time of commission of the crime. However, answer to this question would depend upon the effect of notification issued in exercise of the power under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. From a plain reading of this section it is evident that 'active duty' would include duty of such person during any period declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette as a period of active duty. Section 2(1)(a) finds place in the definition section of the Act.
13 It is well settled that legislature has authority to define a word even artificially and while doing so, it may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. When the legislature uses the expression "means" in the definition clause, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive. However, use of the expression "includes" in the definition clause makes it extensive. Many a times, as in the present case, the legislature has used the term "means" and "includes" both and, hence, definition of the expression "active duty" is presumed to be exhaustive. In our opinion, the use of the expression "includes" enlarges the meaning of the word "active duty" and, therefore, it shall not only mean the duty Page 28 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT specified in the section but those duty also as declared by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. The notification so issued by the Central Government states that "duty of every person" of the Force "serving in the State" of Jammu and Kashmir "with effect from the 1st of July, 2007 to 30th of June, 2010 as active duty". The notification does not make any reference to the nature of duty, but lays emphasis at the place where the members of the Force are serving, to come within the definition of 'active duty'. In view of the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused persons were on active duty at the time of commission of the offence.
14 The natural corollary of what we have found above is that the bar of trial by the Security Force Court provided in Section 47 of the Act would not operate. Section 47 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:
"47. Civil offences not triable by a Security Force Court. A person subject to this Act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation to, a person not subject to this Act shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by a Security Force Court, unless he commits any of the said offences,
(a) while on active duty; or
(b) at any place outside India; or
(c) at any place specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf."
The aforesaid provision makes it clear that a member of the Force accused of an offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rape shall not be tried by a Security Force Court, unless the offence has been committed while on active duty.
15 As we have found that the accused persons have committed the offence while on active duty within the extended meaning, the bar under Section 47 of the Act shall not stand in their way for trial by a Security Force Court. The bar of trial by a Security Force Court though is lifted, but it does not mean that the accused who had committed the offence of the nature indicated in Section 47 of the Act shall necessarily have to be tried by a Security Force Court. In a given case, there may not be a bar of trial by a Security Force Court, but still an accused can be tried by a Criminal Court. In other words, in such a situation, the choice of trial is between the Criminal Court and the Security Force Court. This situation is visualized under Section 80 of the Act, which reads as follows:
Page 29 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"80.Choice between criminal court and Security Force Court. When a criminal court and a Security Force Court have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the Director General, or the InspectorGeneral or the Deputy InspectorGeneral within whose command the accused person is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed, to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted, and, if that officer decides that they shall be instituted before a Security Force Court, to direct that the accused person shall be detained in Force custody."
16 As we have observed above, in the present case, the Criminal Court and the Security Force Court each have jurisdiction for trial of the offence which the accused persons are alleged to have committed. In such a contingency Section 80 of the Act has conferred discretion on the Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General of the Force within whose Command the accused person is serving, to decide before which court the proceeding shall be instituted. Section 141 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. It is relevant here to state that the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 141 (1) and (2) of the Act has made the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". Chapter VI of the Rules is in relation to choice of jurisdiction between Security Force Court and criminal court.
17 Thus, for exercise of discretion under Section 80 of the Act, Rules have been framed and Rule 41 of the Rules, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows:
"41. Trial of cases either by Security Force Court or criminal court. (1) Where an offence is triable both by a criminal court and a Security Force Court, an officer referred to in section 80 may,
(i) (a) where the offence is committed by the accused in the course of the performance of his duty as a member of the Force, or
(b) where the offence is committed in relation to property belonging to the Government or the Force or a person subject to the Act, or
(c) where the offence is committed against a person subject to the Act, direct that any person subject to the Act, who is alleged to have committed such an offence, be tried by a Court; and
(ii) in any other case, decide whether or not it would be necessary in the interests of discipline to claim for trial by a Court any person subject to the Act who is alleged to have committed such an offence.Page 30 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT
(2) In taking a decision to claim an offender for trial by a Court, an officer referred to in section 80 may take into account all or any of the following factors, namely:
(a) the offender is on active duty or has been warned for active duty and it is felt that he is trying to avoid such duty;
(b) the offender is a young person undergoing training and the offence is not a serious one and the trial of the offender by a criminal court would materially affect his training.
(c) the offender can, in view of the nature of the case, be dealt with summarily under the Act."
18 Rule 2 (c) of the Rules defines Court to mean the Security Force Court. A bare reading of Rule 41(1) makes it evident that where the offence is committed in the course of the performance of duty as a member of the Force or where the offence is committed in relation to property belonging to the Government or the Force or a person subject to the Act or where the offence is committed against a person subject to the Act, the officer competent to exercise the power under Section 80 of the Act may direct that the members of the Force who have committed the offence, be tried by a Security Force Court. The allegations in the present case do not indicate that the accused committed the offence in course of performance of their duty as a member of the Force or in relation to property belonging to the Government or the Force or a person subject to the Act or the offence was committed against a person subject to the Act. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid ingredients are not satisfied and, therefore, the jurisdictional fact necessary for trial of the accused persons by a Security Force Court does not exist.
19 Rule 41 (1)(ii) further authorizes the officer competent to exercise its power under Section 80 of the Act to decide as to whether or not it would be necessary in the interest of discipline to claim for trial by a Security Force Court. It is worth mentioning here that Rule 41 (2) enumerates the factors which the officer competent under Section 80 of the Act is to take into account for taking a decision for trial of an accused by a Security Force Court. None of the clauses of Rule 41(1)(i) and 41(2) apply in the facts of the present case. The condition under which the authority could exercise the discretion is provided under Rule 41(1)(ii) of the Rules.
20 We must answer here an ancillary submission. It is pointed out that the Rules made to give effect to the provisions of the Act has to be consistent with it and if a rule goes beyond what the Act contemplates or is in conflict thereof, the rule must yield to the Act. It is emphasized that Section 80 of the Act confers discretion on the Officer within whose Command the accused person is serving the choice between Criminal Court Page 31 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT and Security Force Court without any rider, whereas Rule 41 of the Rules specifies grounds for exercise of discretion. Accordingly, it is submitted that this rule must yield to Section 80 of the Act. We do not find any substance in this submission.
21 One of the most common mode adopted by the legislature conferring rule making power is first to provide in general terms i.e., for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, and then to say that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules may provide for number of enumerated matters.
22 Section 141 of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present appeal, confers on the Central Government the power to make rules is of such a nature. It reads as follows:
"141. Power to make rules.(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for,
(a) the constitution, governance, command and discipline of the Force;
(b) the enrolment of persons to the Force and the recruitment of other members of the Force;
(c) the conditions of service including deductions from pay and allowances of members of the Force;
(d) the rank, precedence, powers of command and authority of the officers, subordinate officers, under officers and other persons subject to this Act;
(e) the removal, retirement, release or discharge from the service of persons subject to this Act;
(f) the purposes and other matters required to be prescribed under section 13;
(g) the convening, constitution, adjournment, dissolution and sittings of Security Force Courts, the procedure to be observed in trials by such courts, the persons by whom an accused may be defended in such trials and the appearance of such persons thereat;
(h) the confirmation, revision and annulment of, and petitions against, the findings and sentences of Security Force Courts;
(i) the forms of orders to be made under the provisions of this Act relating to Security Force Courts and the awards and infliction of Page 32 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT death, imprisonment and detention;
(j) the carrying into effect of sentences of Security Force Courts;
(k) any matter necessary for the purpose of carrying this Act into execution, as far as it relates to the investigation, arrest, custody, trial and punishment of offences triable or punishable under this Act;
(l) the ceremonials to be observed and marks of respect to be paid in the Force;
(m) the convening of, the constitution, procedure and practice of, Courts of inquiry, the summoning of witnesses before them and the administration of oaths by such Courts;
(n) the recruitment and conditions of service of the Chief Law Officer and the Law Officers;
(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be prescribed or in respect of which this Act makes no provision or makes insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the Central Government, necessary for the proper implementation of this Act. (3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."
23 In our opinion, when the power is conferred in general and thereafter in respect of enumerated matters, as in the present case, the particularlisation in respect of specified subject is construed as merely illustrative and does not limit the scope of general power. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1471, in which it has been held as follows:
"18..........Section 15(1) confers wide powers on the appropriate Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act; and Section 15(2) specifies some of the matters enumerated by clauses
(a) to (e), in respect of which rules may be framed. It is well settled that the enumeration of the particular matters by sub section (2) will not control or limit the width of the powers conferred on the appropriate Government by subsection (1) of Page 33 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Section 15; and so, if it appears that the item added by the appropriate Government has relation to conditions of employment, its addition cannot be challenged as being invalid in law........"
(Underlining ours) 24 The Privy Council applied this principle in the case of Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, AIR 1945 PC 156, to uphold the validity of Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules, which though was found in excess of the express power conferred under enumerated provision, but covered under general power. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Their Lordships are unable to agree with the learned Chief Justice of the Federal Court on his statement of the relative positions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 2, Defence of India Act, and counsel for the respondents in the present appeal was unable to support that statement, or to maintain that R.26 was invalid. In the opinion of their Lordships, the function of sub section (2) is merely an illustrative one; the rulemaking power is conferred by subsection (1), and "the rules" which are referred to in the opening sentence of subsection (2) are the rules which are authorized by, and made under, subsection (1); the provisions of subsection (2) are not restrictive of subsection (1), as indeed is expressly stated by the words "without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1)." There can be no doubt - as the learned Judge himself appears to have thought - that the general language of sub section (1) amply justifies the terms of R.26, and avoids any of the criticisms which the learned Judge expressed in relation to subsection (2).
Their Lordships are therefore of opinion that Keshav Talpade v. Emperor, I.L.R. (1944) Bom. 183, was wrongly decided by the Federal Court, and that R.26 was made in conformity with the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 2, Defence of India Act........."
25 A constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Afzal Ullah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 264, quoted with approval the law laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Sibnath Banerji (supra) and held that enumerated provisions do not control the general terms as particularization of topics is illustrative in nature. It reads as follows:
"13. Even if the said clauses did not justify the impugned bye law, there can be little doubt that the said byelaws would be justified by the general power conferred on the Boards by Section 298(1). It is now wellsettled that the specific provisions such as are contained in Page 34 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT the several clauses of Section 298(2) are merely illustrative and they cannot be read as restrictive of the generality of powers prescribed by Section 298(1), vide Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, AIR 1945 PC 156. If the powers specified by Section 298(1) are very wide and they take in within their scope byelaws like the ones with which we are concerned in the present appeal, it cannot be said that the powers enumerated under Section 298(2) control the general words used by Section 298(1). These latter clauses merely illustrate and do not exhaust all the powers conferred on the Board, so that any cases not falling within the powers specified by Section 298(2) may well be protected by Section 298(1), provided, of course, the impugned byelaw can be justified byreference to the requirements of Section 298(1). There can be no doubt that the impugned bye laws in regard to the markets framed by Respondent No. 2 are for the furtherance of municipal administration under the Act, and so, would attract the provisions of Section 298(1). Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the impugned byelaws are valid."
26 In view of what we have observed above it is evident that Rule 41 of the Rules has been made to give effect to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, it has not gone beyond what the Act has contemplated or is any way in conflict thereof. Hence, this has to be treated as if the same is contained in the Act. Wide discretion has been given to the specified officer under Section 80 of the Act to make a choice between a Criminal Court and a Security Force Court but Rule 41 made for the purposes of carrying into effect the provision of the Act had laid down guidelines for exercise of that discretion. Thus, in our opinion, Rule 41 has neither gone beyond what the Act has contemplated nor it has supplanted it in any way and, therefore, the Commanding Officer has to bear in mind the guidelines laid for the exercise of discretion.
27 To test as to whether the Commanding Officer, who had exercised the power under Section 80 of the Act, satisfied the aforesaid requirement, it is apt to reproduce the application filed by him in this regard. The relevant portion of the application reads as follows:
"Whereas a criminal case under FIR No. 04/201 of Police Station Nishat titled State Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and another is pending against Lakhwinder Kumar and Randhir Kumar Birdi before your Court for adjudication.
2. Whereas the said accused persons namely Lakhwinder Kumar (No. 01005455 Constable of 68 Bn BSF) and Randhir Kumar Birdi (Commandant BSF) are serving under my command and,
3. Whereas in exercise of my discretion as envisaged in Section 80 Page 35 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT of the BSF Act, 1968, I have decided to institute proceedings against the said accused persons Lakhwinder Kumar and Randhir Kumar Birdi before the Border Security Force Court.
4. Whereas, the accused persons i.e. Lakhwinder Kumar and Randhir Kumar Birdi are presently under judicial custody and in your control.
5. I therefore request you to stay proceedings in your court against the two accused persons and may forward all connected documents and exhibits of this case and custody of accused person to the undersigned as per Section 549 of Cr.P.C. 1989 (J & K) for instituting proceedings against them under the BSF Act and Rules made thereunder.
6. That the outcome of the trial of the accused persons by Border Security Force Court of the result of effectual proceedings instituted or ordered to be taken against them shall be intimated as per Rules 7 of the J & K Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983."
28 The Commanding Officer, thus, has exercised his power under Section 80 of the Act and excepting to say that the said power has been exercised in his discretion, there is not even a whisper as to why said discretion has been exercised for trial of the accused persons by a Security Force Court. The Commanding Officer has nowhere stated that the trial of the accused by Security Force Court is necessary in the interest of discipline of the Force. Once a statutory guideline has been issued for giving effect to the provisions of the Act, in our opinion, the exercise of discretion without adherence to those guidelines shall render the decision vulnerable. In our opinion, the Commanding Officer has exercised his power ignorant of the restriction placed on him under the Rules. Having found that the Commanding Officer's decision is illegal, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court based on that cannot be allowed to stand."
26 In the present case too, there is nothing in the order or in the form of any record to indicate as to why the authority thought fit to exercise its jurisdiction to order trial of the petitioner by a Security Force Court. The authority concerned has nowhere stated that the trial of the accused by the Security Force is necessary in the interest of discipline of the Force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once a statutory guideline has been issued for giving effect to the provisions of Page 36 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT the Act, the exercise of discretion without adherence to those guidelines shall render the decision vulnerable.
27 In the aforesaid context, Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant has placed reliance on the following two decisions:
27.1 In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar Nigam [(2013) 3 SCC 372], the Supreme Court observed in para 14 as under:
"Total nonapplication of mind and the order being supported by no reason whatsoever would render the order passed as 'arbitrary'. Arbitrariness shall vitiate the administrative order..."
27.2 In CCT vs. Shukla and Bros. [(2010) 4 SCC 785], the Supreme Court impressed upon the need for recording of appropriate reasons in orders and held as under:
""11. The Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India while referring to the practice adopted and insistence placed by the courts in United States, emphasised the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the administrative authorities and tribunals. It said "administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise". To enable the courts to exercise the power of review in consonance with settled principles, the authorities are advised of the considerations underlining the action under review. This Court with approval stated: (SCC p. 602, para
11) '11. ... 'the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained'.'
12. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from an absolute principle of law that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher Page 37 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing."
28 Although Section 80 of the Act, 1968 confers discretionary powers on the authority concerned to take an appropriate decision, yet if such a decision is questioned before the Court of law, then the authority concerned should be in a position to justify its decision either by relying upon the reasons recorded in the order or by showing notings, if any, in the files or any other record to indicate that there was proper application of mind in that regard. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out in the present case.
29 However, the pivotal issue that falls for my consideration is whether I should permit the writ applicant to raise this issue at this stage. I am of the view that the writ applicant is not entitled to raise this issue with regard to the legality and validity of the order passed by the Inspector General in exercise of his discretion under Section 80 of the Act for the reasons I shall assign hereafter.
30 I take notice of the fact that two questions were put to the writ applicant before the trial commenced. The first question put to the writ applicant is as under:
"Do you object to be tried by me as Presiding Officer or any of the officers whose names you have heard?"
31 The answer to the aforesaid question given by the writ applicant is as under:
Page 38 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT"No. I have no objection to any of the members with the Court."
32 The second question put to the writ applicant is as under:
"Do you wish to apply for an adjournment on the ground that any of the rules relating to procedure before trial have not been complied with and that you have been prejudiced thereby or on the ground that you have not had sufficient opportunity for preparing your defence."
33 The reply to the aforesaid question of the writ applicant was as under:
"No. I do not want any adjournment at this stage."
34 Thus, it is evident that the writ applicant, on his own free will and volition, agreed or rather gave consent to be tried by a General Security Force Court. If the writ applicant had any grievance with regard to the decision of the Inspector General, then he could have raised the same at an appropriate stage itself before the appropriate forum. The decision of the Inspector General, in exercise of his discretionary powers under Section 80 of the Act that the writ applicant to be tried by a General Security Force Court, could have been challenged even by filing a writ application before this Court at an appropriate time on the ground that the same is without any application of mind and bereft of any cogent reasons. The writ applicant very consciously submitted to the jurisdiction of the General Security Force Court. The entire trial came to an end before the General Security Force Court. It is pertinent to note that even while preferring a representation in the form of an appeal addressed to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, such contention has not been taken up. This is evident from the submissions of the writ applicant noted by the Government of India in para 3 of its impugned order. All through out, the case of the writ applicant that he is innocent Page 39 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT and has not committed any offence. His case is that the evidence led in the course of the trial is not sufficient to hold him guilty.
35 In the aforesaid context and to fortify my aforesaid view, I propose to rely upon some case law.
36 In the Case of Latchmanan Chettiar vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras [AIR 1927 Mad 130 (FB)], the Full Bench ruled that if the applicant who armed with a point either of law or of fact could oust the jurisdiction of the lower court, has elected to argue a case on its merits before that court, he must be taken to have submitted himself to a jurisdiction which he cannot be allowed afterwards to seek to repudiate by applying for a certiorari . This the Court held on the reasoning that in the matter of issuing a writ of certiorari the High Court acts not under any statute but under the inherent powers which devolve upon it from the old Supreme Court and the High Court therefore stands with regard to the prerogative writs in the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England and it ought to follow the rules laid down by that Court.
37 In the case of Basant Singh v. Janak Singh [AIR 1954 All 447], a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held :
"When the Additional District Magistrate heard the revision, the applicant did not challenge his jurisdiction to hear it. If he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision application his jurisdiction ought to have been challenged there and then by the applicant. When he failed to challenge it, he cannot be permitted to challenge it for the first time through an application for a writ of certiorari ......... If he acquiesced in the Additional District Magistrate's jurisdiction in the hope of getting a favourable decision from him the doctrine of estoppel should be applied against him and the discretionary writ of certiorari should not be issued at his instance when he is disappointed."
38 In the case of Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society vs. State of Page 40 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Bombay [AIR 1954 Bom 202], a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that before a question of jurisdiction of a tribunal is raised in a petition under Articles 226 and 227, objection to jurisdiction must be taken before the tribunal whose order is being challenged. The discussion appears in paragraph 4 of the report. Material observations are :
"Now, as we shall presently point out, the English Courts have taken the view, and in our opinion rightly, that before a question of jurisdiction is raised on a petition, objection to jurisdiction must be taken before the tribunal whose order is being challenged. It is not as if by the petitioner not challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal that he confers jurisdiction upon that tribunal if that tribunal has no jurisdiction. But what the English Courts have said is that the High Court has been asked to exercise a special jurisdiction, not an ordinary jurisdiction and the High Court is entitled to know what the tribunal has to say on the question of jurisdiction which the petitioner wants to agitate before the Court. There is another principle underlying this view, and that is that the tribunal which is brought before the Court should itself be given an opportunity to decide that it has no jurisdiction, before the High Court is called upon to give its decision."
39 Reliance in this case is placed on the decision in Rex vs. Williams, (1914) 1 KB 608. The relevant observations reproduced from that English case which occur. In paragraph 5 of the report are :
".....A party may by his conduct preclude himself from claiming the writ ' ex debito justitiae ' no matter whether the proceedings which he seeks to quash are void or voidable. If they are void it is true that no conduct of his will validate them; but such considerations do not affect the principles on which the courts act in granting or refusing the writ of certiorari . This special remedy will not be granted ' ex debito justitiae to a person who fails to state in his evidence on moving for the rule nisi that at the time of the proceedings impugned he was unaware of the facts on which he relied to impugn them".
40 In the case of Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj and others vs. Union of India [AIR 1957 SC 397], it is held that where none of the petitioners raised any objection to their cases being transferred under Section 5(7 A) of the Income Tax Act, and in fact admitted to the jurisdiction of the Page 41 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT Income Tax Officers to whom their cases had been transferred, the petitioners were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, as it is well settled that such conduct of the petitioners would disentitle them to any relief at the hands of the Supreme Court.
41 In the case of Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi [AIR 1957 SC 425], the Supreme Court ruled that on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant knew the material facts and must be deemed to have been conscious of his legal rights in that matter and therefore his deliberate failure to raise the objection to the constitution of the Tribunal on ground of bias before the Tribunal at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him and he was precluded from raising it before the High Court for the first time. It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report he adopted the device of raisins the present technical point.
42 In the case of Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. Tanjore vs. Raman and Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbakonam [AIR 1965 Mad 321], a learned Single Judge following the Full Bench decision of this High Court in AIR 1927 Mad 130 referred to above held that the objection cannot be permitted in the proceedings to obtain writ of certiorari either on the ground of acquiescence or from the stand point of certiorari .
43 In the case of Babu vs. Dist Deputy Director of Consolidation, [1968 R.D. 90 (HC)], a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that where the point that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to hear the revision was not at all taken up before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Page 42 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT therefore the petitioner submitted to his jurisdiction, it is not open to him to raise the point in writ petition that he had no jurisdiction to hear the application in revision.
44 From an examination of the various cases discussed above, it seems well settled that though there is no absolute bar against a plea going to the root of the matter being allowed to be raised for the first time in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may refuse to permit such a point being raised for the first time in a writ petition on the ground that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner stands precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order.
45 Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant also made an attempt to persuade this Court to go into the evidence and take the view that the same is not sufficient to hold the writ applicant guilty of the alleged offence. I am afraid I am unable to accede to such submission of Mr. Trivedi. In my view, I should not reappreciate the evidence in exercise of my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if two views are possible. The entire evidence has been looked into by the Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Director General, Border Security Force and the Government of India has also thought fit not to interfere with the decision of the General Security Force Court.
46 For the foregoing reasons, I have reached to the conclusion that I should not disturb the impugned order passed by the authorities concerned.
47 In the result, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected.
Page 43 of 44 R/SCR.A/2192/2010 CAV JUDGMENT48 I take notice of the fact that at the time of admission of this writ application, the writ applicant was ordered to be released on bail. The order dated 29th October 2010 releasing the writ applicant on bail reads as under:
"1. RULE. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as against sentence to undergo imprisonment for four years, the petitioner has already served out sentence of 18 months. Moreover, there is no possibility of hearing the main matter, in the near future.
3. Considering the above aspects of the matter, the petitioner is ordered to be RELEASED on BAIL, on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/ and on conditions that HE SHALL,
1. SURRENDER his passport, if he has one;
2. NOT leave the STATE without prior permission of the Court;
3. remain PRESENT, as and when so directed."
49 As the writ applicant wants to challenge this judgment before the Honourable Supreme Court, he shall continue to remain on bail on the same terms and conditions for a period of four weeks from today.
50 On expiry of the period of four weeks, the bail bond shall stand cancelled and the writ applicant shall surrender before the authority concerned to serve the remaining part of the sentence unless in the meantime, the writ applicant is able to obtain any relief from the higher forum.
(J.B. PARDIWALA, J.) CHANDRESH Page 44 of 44