Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, JJ.
KIRAN KUMAR – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 497 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 468 – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Section 117 – Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – Rule 167 – Punishment for rape – Forgery for purpose of cheating – Remedy against order – Petition filed seeking directions to respondents to adjudicate statutory petition filed by petitioner confirm sentence in a time bound manner – Held, Court considered that once sentence is enhanced right of petitioner accrued to make a pre-confirmation petition which he accordingly made submission of counsel for respondents, competent authority has confirmed sentence vide order considering statutory petition filed by petitioner record evinces that pre-confirmation statutory petition filed after Revisional Order has not been considered – Order Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to adjudicate the statutory petition dated 20.12.2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 117(1) of the BSF Act read with Rule 167 of the BSF Rules and confirm the sentence in a time bound manner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the BSF on 01.06.2002 on the rank of Constable. A complaint was filed against the petitioner on 26.11.2019 by the prosecutrix for illegal blackmailing and false promise of marriage wherein the General Security Force Court trial proceedings were conducted under Sections 376/468 IPC and the petitioner, vide order dated 29.06.2022, was found guilty and was imprisoned for a period of two years with dismissal from service.
3. Thereafter, on 20.08.2022, petitioner preferred a pre-confirmation statutory petition under Section 117 (1) of the BSF Act, read with Rule 167 of the BSF Rules. Since it was not decided, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner for time bound adjudication. The same was disposed of with the direction to adjudicate the statutory petition within six weeks. The petitioner was tried for revision trial before the GSFC and the GSFC enhanced the sentence to 10 years from 2 years with dismissal from service vide its order dated 28.11.2022.
4. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred another statutory petition dated 20.12.2022 under Section 117 (1) of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969, however, the said petition has not been decided till date.
5. Notice issued.
6. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, on advance notice, submits that the sentence of the petitioner has been confirmed vide order dated 29.12.2022.
7. Against order dated 28.11.2022 enhancing the sentence, petitioner filed a statutory petition dated 20.12.2022 which has not been considered as per the provisions mentioned above, but the sentence has been enhanced by the GSFC and confirmed by a competent authority without considering the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 117(1) of the BSF Act read with Rule 167 of the BSF Act.
8. We are of the considered opinion that once the sentence is enhanced, the right of the petitioner accrued to make a pre-confirmation petition which he accordingly made on 20.12.2022. Though as per the submission of counsel for the respondents, competent authority has confirmed the sentence vide order dated 29.12.2022 after considering the statutory petition dated 20.12.2022 filed by the petitioner, but the record evinces that the pre-confirmation statutory petition dated 20.12.2022 filed after the Revisional Order dated 28.11.2022, has not been considered.
9. In view of above, we hereby set aside order dated 29.12.2022 by giving direction to the respondents to first decide the pre-confirmation petition dated 20.12.2022 within six weeks as per law.
10. Needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum as per law.
The court can issue a writ of mandamus to direct the adjudication of a post-confirmation statutory petition under the BSF Act, 1968 within a reasonable time frame.
The court directed timely adjudication of a statutory petition under the Border Security Force Act, ensuring procedural compliance without addressing the merits.
Entitlement to documents and expeditious adjudication under the BSF Act.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of statutory petitions and the provision of relevant documents to ensure procedural fairness in administrative processes.
A petitioner is entitled to access documents of disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness in adjudication under the BSF Act.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 is essential, and the court has the authority to direct the respondents to adhere to a specified timeline.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions and suspension of sentence under the Border Security Force Act.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions under the BSF Act is essential for ensuring due process and protecting the rights of personnel.
The court has the authority to direct the respondent to decide on petitions for suspension of sentence within specified timelines, especially when rigorous imprisonment is involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
