Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

56. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that his valuable right to call witnesses granted to him under Army Rule 23 has been violated and his defense severely prejudiced inasmuch he has been denied opportunity to examine the 16 witnesses cited by him. The petitioner contends that the examination of these witness was essential inasmuch as these witnesses would have established that the trial of the petitioner was barred by limitation.

57. In the context of the facts in the instant case the petitioner is seeking to advance the argument that the limitation had commenced from the date the tapes were broadcast on television. In this behalf, according to the respondents, by virtue of the broadcast, merely commission of some offence was revealed. Accordingly a Court of Inquiry was directed in accordance with the provisions of Army Rule 177 to 182 i.e. under Chapter VI of the Army Rules. The terms of appointment of the court of inquiry required inquiry into allegations of influencing the procurement of defense equipments as made against the Army Officers by Tehelka.com on 13th March, 2001. The Court was required to investigate the complicity of any other person(s) who might been involved in any way.

(v) There is no mandatory requirement of supply of copy of a Court of Inquiry to a person who may be arraigned for trial (Re: Union of India v. Major A.Hussain; (Head Note A) para 8 Major General Inderjit Kumar v. UOI.

61. After receipt of the report of court of inquiry the commanding officer is required to comply with Army Rule 22 and may direct recording of a summary of evidence in compliance with Army Rule 23 to 25.

It is noteworthy that the Army Act, 1950 was amended pursuant to the Amendment Act 37 of 1992. Section 22 saw material amendments which become evident from the following comparison:-

4. After the procedure laid down in Army Rule 22 has been duly followed, other steps as provided in Army Rules 23 and 24, shall be complied with in letter and spirit. In order to ensure that there is no omission or laxity in the strict compliance of the procedure laid down in the Army Rules, the form given in Appendix 'A' to this Army Order shall be duly completed by the Commanding Officer and kept on record in all cases.
5. A copy of this Army Order will be kept in the Unit Court Martial Box.

101. In this behalf there is no dispute that the Court of Inquiry submitted its report on 14th July, 2001 which report is the basis of information to the Commanding Officer. It is an admitted case that the Court of Inquiry was convened under Army Rule 177 to Army Rule 180 and also a Summary of Evidence was ordered to be directed against the petitioner under Army rules 23 to 24. The Commanding Officer has referred the matter in terms of Army Rule 24 and even made his submissions which have been relied upon by the petitioner in the letter dated 12th April, 2004. The proceedings under Army Rule 22 were held on 30th September, 2002 and the summary of evidence recorded from 30th September, 2002, 11th December, 2002 to 1st October, 2003.