The judgment established the importance of fair trial procedures, adherence to procedural safeguards, and the need for justice to be seen to be done.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein joined the Army Service as a Sepoy in the Regiment of Artillery. At the relevant point of time, He was promoted to the post of Havildar in Non-Commissioned Officer s rank in the Army. He was selected for promotion to the post of Battery Quarter Master havildar out of 10 Havildars similarly situated. He, during the aforementioned period, also acquired necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar which is in the rank of Junior Commissioned officer. The petitioner as BQMH was responsible for receipt, issue and ledger accounting of all the stores belonging to the Brigade Headquarter as also their care, maintenance and security. Small arms and ammunitions belonging to the said Brigade are kept under lock and key in the Station ammunition Dump under the charge of Station Ammunition Guard. The ammunition Dump is backed up by security arrangements. On or about 25th October 1995, he had gone to the Ammunition Dump to draw 50 rounds of SAA required for an urgent ground duty but found the lock of the barrack, which housed the said commodity belonging to the said brigade Headquarter, changed. He informed the matter, to his superior officers. The lock of the said barrack was broken on 27th October 1995 and a number of empty grenade bags lying there were found wherefrom it appeared that theft of some small arms and ammunitions had taken place. A sniffer dog was put in service which led the tracker team to Sentry Post no. 3 and then to perimeter barbed wire fencing merely at a distance of 3-4 yards from Sentry Post No. 3 therefrom, which was found to have been cut and a large hole was created through which a person or even ammunition boxes could easily pass. The hole led to a hut situated on the outskirts of a neighbouring village which had been abandoned.

( 2 ) IT was found that the following quantities of SAA had been stolen:

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in terms of Regulation No. 523 of the Defence Services Regulations for the Army as also the relevant army Orders, the respondent No. 3 was required to take assistance of the state CID or to have the matter enquired by a Court of Enquiry consisting of the officers from outside Brigade. However, none of the above two actions was taken. Only a Court of Enquiry was set up to enquire into the matter. Even in the FIR lodged on 29th October 1995 which was lodged after five days of the incidence, no mention had been made of the afore mentioned clues and leads provided by the CISF trekker dog. Allegedly, the said Court of Enquiry did not find fault with their own men and needle of suspicion was directed on petitioner and his assistant namely Naik swinder Singh. The petitioner s finger-prints were obtained and he was put under arrest and taken to Meerut under an armed guard of six persons where he was kept in illegal custody for 40 days i. e. till 15th December 1995.

( 4 ) THE petitioner alleges that he was subjected to most inhuman physical beating and other forms of torture by respondents No. 5 and 6 who allegedly pressurized him to make a written confession that he had committed theft of the said ammunition. However, the petitioner declined to make such a confession. According to the petitioner, the said naik Swinder Singh was also subjected to similar physical torture as a result whereof he had begun suffering from neuroplexia. It has been contended that the respondents No. 5 and 6 visited Raiwala from time to time apparently for making some enquiry but they were busy in collecting a large quantity of whisky from Defence canteens. The petitioner had annexed various chits to show that they had drawn at least 418 bottles of rum and whisky from defence canteens.

( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted an application on 25th June 1996 with the Chief of Army Staff through the third respondent requesting him to hold an impartial court of enquiry. The petitioner requested the third respondent to supply him a copy of the court of enquiry, proceedin