R. K. Manisana, J.— In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the trial by a summary court martial, order of conviction and sentence passed against him, and the order of removing him from his services. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are thus. The petitioner Shri S. Kuttan was a driver of the General Reserve Engineering Force, 'GREF' for short. On 28. 3. 81 he was travelling alongwith three other persons by a vehicle. When the vehicle reached the check point at Phuntsholing, it stopped. On examination of the baggage of the petitioner he was found possessing 70 bottles of foreign liquor of Bhutan makes. The charge framed against the petitioner was : "Army Act An act prejudicial to good order and Military Section 63 Discipline in that he at Phuntsholing, on 28 Mar' 81, was unlawlully in possession of 70 bottles of liquor." By his letter dated 10.2.82, the Officer Commanding, informed the petitioner that he would be tried by a summary court martial on 15.2.82, and that he was entitled to select any person as a 'friend of the accused'. In that letter the petitioner was asked to intimate the name of the officer selected by him to the Officer Commanding. On receipt of the letter, the petitioner, vide, his letter dated 11.2.82 informed the Officer Commanding that be did not require a 'friend but he was indeed in need of a defending officer as he is an illiterate person, and requested tie Officer Commanding either to permit him to bring an Advocate from the civil Court or to select one of the two officers, namely Sarvaihri P. N. Swami and V. Jayaraman from HQ DGBR to plead on his behalf. The Officer Commanding turned down the requests by his letter dated 12. 2. 82 stating that there was no provision under Rule 129 of the Army Rules, 1954, and the petitioner would have to defend his case with a 'friend of the accused', as provided under Rule 129 of the Rules. On the trial, the summary court martial found the petitioner guilty under section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 and sentenced him 2 months. The order of conviction and sentence was passed on 2. 3. 82. One Shri S. K. Mullick was appointed as the 'friend' of the petitioner during the trial. On the trial, the summary court martial found the petitioner guilty under section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 and sentenced him 2 months. The order of conviction and sentence was passed on 2. 3. 82. One Shri S. K. Mullick was appointed as the 'friend' of the petitioner during the trial. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority in exercising the powers under Rule 19 (i) of the Central Civil Services (Classifi­cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, passed an order dated 2:. 4. 82 removing the petitioner from his services with effect from 25. 4. 82. The petitioner's appeals or representations for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence as well as the order of removal from the services had been rejected on 15. 10. 8?. Hence the petition. 3. The contention of Mr. A. K, Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there was not a fair trial as the army authority had not allowed the petitioner to have the assistance of a civilian lawyer, or one of the officers, namely Sarvashri P. N. Swami and V. Jayaraman. Instead, one Shri S.K. Mullick, who was not the choice of the petitioner was appointed as the 'friend of the accused'. Therefore, the trial has been vitiated. 4. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether there was or was not a 'fair trial'. We may summarise the facts for the dealing with the question. The request of the petitioner to appoint Shri P. N. Swami or Shri V. Jayaraman as defending officer to plead on his behalf, or alternatively to allow him to bring an Advocate, had been turned down. Instead, Shri S.K. Mullick was appointed as'ttis 'friend' of the petitioner. 5. Before . dealing with the question, it would be important to note that the learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that for the trial by a court martial the Army Act and the Army Rules will be applicable to the members of the GREF. 6. Coming to the case on hand, Rule 129 provides: "Friend of accused-In any summary court martial, an accused person may have a person to assist him during the trial, whether a legal adviser or any other person. 6. Coming to the case on hand, Rule 129 provides: "Friend of accused-In any summary court martial, an accused person may have a person to assist him during the trial, whether a legal adviser or any other person. A person so assisting him may advise him on all points and suggest the questions to be put to witnesses, but shall not examine or cross-examine witness or address the Court", (emphasis added) Rule 129 provides that, in any summary court martial, an accused may have a 'person' to assist him. Whoever assisting the accused, shall not examine or cross examine the witnesses or address the Court, but he only can advise the accused on all the points and suggest the question to be put to the witness. The person who would be assisting the accused may be 'legal adviser' or 'any private person'. The use of the words 'legal adviser' or 'any other person' in Rule 129 makes it clear that the word 'person' employed in Rule 129 includes a lawyer or any officer or any other person. The petitioner has not prayed that he may be allowed to appear by or through a legal practitioner and to plead on his behalf The petitioner prayed only that he may be allowed to bring a civilian lawyer. But, in the case of the officers, he has prayed for allowing either Shri P. N. Swami or Shri V. Jayaraman to plead on his behalf. 3s that as it may, even assuming that there is no provision that in a summary court martial an accused is not entitled to be defended by a legal practitioner or by a defending officer about which we are not expressing our opinion, the army authority could have appointed a civilian lawyer, or P. N. Swami or V. Jayaraman who was the choice of the petitioner, as the 'friend of the petitioner' to assist him as is provided under Rule 129 in place of Shri Mullick who was not the choice of the petitioner. 7. An accused has right to a 'fair trial'. In the administration of criminal justice, what is contemplated by 'fair trial' is fair and reasonable procedure for the trial of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life, and personal liberty. 'Acting fairly' is the essence of principles of natural justice. 7. An accused has right to a 'fair trial'. In the administration of criminal justice, what is contemplated by 'fair trial' is fair and reasonable procedure for the trial of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life, and personal liberty. 'Acting fairly' is the essence of principles of natural justice. Merely because the assistance of Shri Mullick who was not the choice of the petitioner was made available to the petitioner as the 'friend' of the petitioner during the trial would not be sufficient. It might be said that Shri Mullick was appointed as the 'friend of the accused' and, therefore, justice has been done. But the petitioner has felt that," although Rule 129 does not prohibit to appoint a 'friend' of his choice, justice has not been done to him as the person of his choice has not been appointed as his 'friend' to assist him. In the administration of justice, the fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be done should always be kept in view. In the present case justice must appear to be done ii lacking. For these reasons, we are of the view that there was no fair trial and conse­quently there has been miscarriage of justice which has vitiated the trial. 8. Mr. Bhattacharyya has further contended that the right of the petitioner under Article 22 (1) has not been abrogated or restricted by Article 33 of the Constitution and that the possession of 70 bottles of liquor was not aa offence under section 63 of the Army Act. In view of our conclusion above, we prefer to leave the question to be dealt with later, if ever, it is alleged. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the case is to be set back for retrial The occurrence took place on 28. 3. 81. The conviction has been in force for more than 9 years. Quick justice is one of the rights of an accused. The petitioner has been out of service for more than 8 years. The sword has been hanging over his head for about 9 years. In that view of the matter, it would be just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prosecution of the petitioner to proceed no further. We do so accordingly. The petitioner has been out of service for more than 8 years. The sword has been hanging over his head for about 9 years. In that view of the matter, it would be just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prosecution of the petitioner to proceed no further. We do so accordingly. As a result of it the order of removal of the petitioner from his services is also to be quashed. 10. In the result, proceedings against the petitioner are quashed, and the petitiion is allowed with the above observation and direction. No costs.