JUDGMENT S.N. Sahay, J 1. The petitioner Sher Bahadur was enrolled in the Army on January 19, 1980 as Sepoy Driver M.T. and subsequently was given an appointment as LINK. He was posted under the command of the Commandant (OC Troops) Air Defence Brigade, respondent no. 3. The petitioner was tried by a summary court martial for assaulting Subedar Major Chandra Singh and causing injuries to him by lathis on July 26, 1988 at about 9 30 p.m, while he was proceeding to his residence on scooter. The petitioner was charged under Section 40, Army Act for using criminal force to his superior officer The petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced by the Court to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Court directed that the sentence be carried out in Civil Prison and the petitioner be also dismissed from service and deprived of appointment of LINK. The sentence was promulgated by respondent no. 3 on September 2, 1983. The petitioner made a representation against the verdict and sentence of the Court Martial. The representation was rejected by GOCinC Central Command by order dated February 1, 1989. The validity of the same has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that during trial Colonel P. H. Ram was appointed to act as Friend of accused (defence counsel of the petitioner). However, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated August 18, 1988 that he had no faith in Colonel P.H. Ram and hence Major Srivastava may be appointed as defence counsel. The prayer of the petitioner was not granted and the petitioner was, it is so contended by him, prejudiced in his defence during trial. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram belongs to a different Unit and there was no question of his having any connection with Colonel P. Sen, who was prosecutor at the relevant time. Moreover, Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram was a very senior officer and was not on the posted strength of the Unit of respondent no. 3 and was the most suitable person to act as Friend of the accused. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Major R.P. Srivastava was also contacted but he refused in writing to act as Friend of the accused and this was duly communicated to the petitioner. 3 and was the most suitable person to act as Friend of the accused. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Major R.P. Srivastava was also contacted but he refused in writing to act as Friend of the accused and this was duly communicated to the petitioner. The respondents have accordingly submitted that the trial was not vitiated on account of the fact that Lieutenant Colonel P. H. Ram was appointed to act as Friend of the accused. 3. Rule 129 of the Army Rules, 1954 provides that 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 assisting him, may advise him on all points and suggest the question to be put to witnesses, but shall not examine or crossexamine witnesses or address the Court. This rule indicates that the role of Friend of accused in the trial of an accused by Summary Court Martial is very significant. The duty of the Friend of accused is to assist the accused during the trial and to advise him on all points and also suggest the questions to be put to the witnesses. The provisions of rule 129 are in furtherance of the provisions of rule 33(7) which lay down that an officer shall give to the accused free of charge a copy of the summary of evidence or abstract of evidence as the case may be and explain to him his rights under the rules as to preparing his defence and being assisted or represented at the trial. As a matter of fact rule 33(7) enjoins upon the officer concerned to ask the accused to state in writing whether or not he wishes to have an officer assigned by the convening officer to represent him at the trial if a suitable officer should be available. The proceedings before the Summary Court Martial are judicial proceedings and detailed provisions have been made in the Army Act and Rules to ensure that the secured gets a fair trial in respect of the charges on which he is being tried and that he is given adequate opportunity to prepare his defence and to submit the same for the consideration of the Court Martial. It is only after considering the whole case and examining the witnesses and evidence produced in the case that the Summary Court Martial decides the matter judicially and finds whether the charge has been proved against the accused or not and if the charge is proved, what punishment should be inflicted on him commensurate with the same. Therefore, Rule 129 read with rule 33(7) clearly postulates that the officer who is assigned to the accused should be a person who is able and willing to assist the accused during the trial and who also enjoys the confidence of the accused. It the officer assigned to the accused to act as Friend of the accused during the trial does not enjoy his confidence, then there will be gap of communication between the two and the officer cannot discharge his duties as Friend of the accused fairly as he cannot render adequate assistance to the accused and give necessary advice to him on the points arising in the trial. The provisions of rule 129 must be interpreted in a manner which will fulfil the object of Article 39A of the Constitution which directs that the State shall secure that the operation of legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. 4. In the present case the petitioner had made it clear long before the commencement of the trial to the authorities concerned by representation dated August 18, 1988 that he had absolutely no faith in Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram who should not be appointed as Friend of the accused. From the point of view of authorities, there was nothing wrong in appointing Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram, a very senior officer, as Friend of the accused. But the view point of the authorities was not material. On the other hand it was the view point of the accused which was material, as he had to be assisted and advised during the trial. The matter was as much subjective for an accused as liable to objective determination by the authorities. Therefore, by providing Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram as Friend of the accused to the petitioner during trial, the petitioner was deprived of a valuable right of assistance and advice during trial and it has necessarily prejudiced him in the preparation of his defence and his trial. Therefore, by providing Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram as Friend of the accused to the petitioner during trial, the petitioner was deprived of a valuable right of assistance and advice during trial and it has necessarily prejudiced him in the preparation of his defence and his trial. If Major R.P. Srivastava was not willing to act as Friend of the accused, it was proper for the authorities to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to suggest the name of some other person and to appoint him as Friend of the accused as far as possible. But certainly the appointment of Lieutenant Colonel P.H. Ram as Friend of the accused has a devastating effect and the whole trial stands vitiated thereby. The petitioner is, therefore, right in his submission that he has not been tried fairly by the Summary Court Martial and the conviction and sentence awarded to him cannot be allowed to stand. 5. The result is that the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the Summary Court Martial and respondent no. 3 and GOCinC Central Command contained in Annexures4 and 5 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. It will be open to the respondents to convene fresh Summary Court Martial and to hold the trial of the accused de novo in accordance with law after providing a proper person to act as Friend of the accused to him during trial. No order as to costs.