Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 607 (GAU)

Bhagaban Talukdar v. Union of India

2006-06-29

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner in Civil Rule No. 3274/97 is the appellant in this Writ Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2002 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed upholding the order dated 22.5.1996 passed in a Summary Court Martial proceeding against the appellant sentencing him to imprisonment and as well as dismissal from service. 2. In order to consider as to whether the impugned judgment under appeal suffers from any errors requiring our interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, few relevant facts may have to be noticed. 3. The appellant herein has been charged of using criminal force against his superior officer vide charge dated 13.5.1996. That, a Summary Court Martial was held against him in respect of the said charge resulting in award of sentence of imprisonment as well as dismissal from service. 4. The appellant herein urged solitary ground challenging the validity of the order dated 22.5.1996 passed in the Summary Court Martial proceeding contending that the order passed in the Court Martial held against him is vitiated in law for the reason of non-compliance with the provision of Rule 115 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('the Rules, 1954') framed under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The contention was that the record of the proceedings of the Court Martial itself would reveal non-compliance with the provision of the Rule and such noncompliance has the effect of vitiating the sentence as well as the dismissal order passed against the appellant. 5. The learned Single Judge having perused the entire record and on elaborate consideration of the matter found no merit in the sole ground that was urged in the writ petition. 6. In this Writ Appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the same submission that was made before the learned Single Judge. The learned Assistant Solicitor General for India relying on the record submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Court Martial made a clear endorsement in the minutes of the proceeding and that itself would go to show that the charge framed against the appellant herein has been clearly explained to him together with the general effect of plea of guilt by the appellant. The learned Assistant Solicitor General for India contended that the provision of Rule 115(2) of the Rules, 1954 has been complied with in letter and spirit. The learned Assistant Solicitor General for India contended that the provision of Rule 115(2) of the Rules, 1954 has been complied with in letter and spirit. The submission is the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this court. 7. The provision of Rule 115(2) of the Rules, 1954 on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel reads as under: 115(2). If an accused person pleads "Guilty", that plea shall be recorded as the finding of the court; but before it is recorded, the court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty and shall inform him of the general effect of that plea, and in particular of the meaning of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty, and of the difference in procedure which will be made by the plea of guilty, and shall advise him to withdraw that plea if it appears from the summary of evidence (if any) or otherwise that the accused ought to plead not guilty. 8. We have once again perused the records made available by the Union of India which disclose that the purport of the charge has been clearly explained to the appellant to which he pleaded guilty. Thereafter the Presiding Officer recorded in the minutes that before recording the plea of guilty by the accused, it was explained to him the meaning and purport of the charge to which the appellant pleaded guilty and it was ascertained that the appellant understood the nature of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty. The court having satisfied to itself that the appellant has understood the charge and effect of his plea of guilty and only thereafter recorded the same. 9. The records disclose that it is not a case of simple reading of charge and explaining the same to the appellant but number of questions were put to him eliciting answers in which the appellant clearly admitted his guilt. He has even gone to the extent of stating that it was a pre-meditated attempt on his part to hit and injure his superior officer as he bore some grudge against his superior officer. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the appellant was forced to plead guilty against the charge framed against him. He has even gone to the extent of stating that it was a pre-meditated attempt on his part to hit and injure his superior officer as he bore some grudge against his superior officer. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the appellant was forced to plead guilty against the charge framed against him. The endorsement made by the Presiding Officer is in conformity with Rule 115(2) of the Rules, 1954. The charge has been clearly explained to the appellant and he has understood the same and also the consequences of such plea of guilty. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant herein voluntarily pleaded guilty being acutely conscious of the possible adverse consequences that may flow from such pleading of guilty to the charge framed against him. The Presiding Officer only after ascertaining that the appellant herein had understood the nature of the charge pleaded guilty after full realisation of the possible consequences of the plea of guilty recorded the same. In such a situation it would be impossible to hold that the respondents had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under the provision of Rule 115(2) of the Rules. 10. We are fully satisfied that the respondents herein have complied with the provision of Rule 115(2) of the Rules, 1954 and the procedure adopted is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in arriving on the conclusion to dismiss the writ petition. 12. We find no merit in this appeal and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.