Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails an order and sentence dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to "SSFC" for brevity) finding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to "BSF Act" for brevity) and the sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner also assails the action of Deputy Inspector General, respondent no. 2 in countersigning the dismissal order on 8th April, 1999 and the order dated 13/16th August, 1999 whereby the petitioner's revision petition under Section 117 (2) of the BSF Act was rejected by the respondent no.2.

10. It is an admitted position before us that the petitioner was placed under close arrest vide the order dated 27th December, 1998 and under open arrest with effect from 6th January, 1999 in terms of Rule 33(2)(a) of the BSF Rules.

11. On a consideration of the abstract of evidence, the Commandant passed an order dated 13th February, 1999 directing that the petitioner would be tried for an offence committed by him under Section 26 of the BSF Act, 1968 by a Summary Security Force Court ('SSFC' hereafter for brevity).

12. The charge on which the petitioner was arraigned to stand trial before the SSFC read as follows :-

"BSF ACT, 1968 SECTION 26 'INTOXICATION' In that he, at Madhopur Market on 26.12.98 at about 1700 hrs was found in a state of intoxication."

13. The proceedings of the Summary Security Force court were held on 17th February, 1999 by the commandant. The petitioner was assigned Shri R.V. Yadav, Assistant Commandant of the battalion as the friend of the accused, in accordance with Rule 157 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The chargesheet was stated to have been read and explained to the petitioner.

42. Even though the officer who records the abstract of evidence is not an adjudicator or the judge in the matter, however, he occupies a crucial position, as his observations are significant enough to be able to influence the result of its consideration by the commandant merely by the manner in which he records the abstract of evidence and his approach in recording the same.

43. So far as the punishment which could be awarded by the Summary Security Force Court is concerned, the same is prescribed under Section 48 of the BSF Act. The same ranges from a sentence of death under sub-section (a), to imprisonment for a term extending from three months upto life under sub- section (b) of Section 48 of the BSF Act. Under sub-section (c), the security force court may sentence a person with dismissal from service; imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months in force custody under sub-section (d); reduction to the ranks or to a lower rank or grade or place in this list of their rank in the case of an under-officer under sub-section (e); forfeiture of seniority of rank and forfeiture of all or any part of the service for the purpose of promotion under sub-section (f); forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or any other prescribed purpose under sub-section (g); fine, in respect of civil offences under sub-section (h); severe reprimand or reprimand except in the case of persons below the rank of an under officer under sub-section (i); forfeiture of pay and allowances for a period not exceeding three months for an offence committed on active duty under sub-section (j) and forfeiture in the case of person sentenced to dismissal from the service of all arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of such dismissal under sub-section (k).