PETITIONER: OMBIR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT05/05/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) RAY, G.N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 273 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.This appeal is directed against the order of the High
Court of Delhi. The appellant was tried by Summary Court
Martial and was sentenced to undergo nine months civil
imprisonment and dismissal from service. The question of
law raised is that Summary Court Martial that was
constituted was not presided over by a Commanding Officer as
required under Section 116 of the Army Act. The submission
is that some of the records supplied to the appellant show
that it was only an officer of the rank of a Captain that
presided and he cannot be deemed to be a Commanding Officer.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that it
had perused the record as well as the evidence and it is
satisfied that the Summary Court Martial was presided over
by Lt. Col. Sandhu, a Commanding Officer.
2.The learned counsel, however, submits that the records
supplied to the appellant do not disclose the same fact. We
have perused the records and we agree with the High Court
that the Summary Court Martial constituted was presided over
by Mr Sandhu, the Commanding Officer. Therefore, there is
no force in the submission.
3.The learned counsel, however, submits that the
appellant was released on bail by this Court and he has been
in jail for a period of over five months and that it is not
a case where the appellant may be sent back to jail at such
distance of time. The act of indiscipline was committed
sometime prior to 1980. So far as this aspect is concerned,
it is for the Army Authority concerned to consider it
whether the appellant should again be sent back to jail for
serving out the remaining small portion of sentence or remit
the same. The appeal is dismissed with these observations.
275