SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Gau) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
B.S. Reddy, and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
Union of India (UOI)
Vs.
T.K. Chatterjee
WA No. 249 of 2005
Decided On: 06.09.2006

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H. Rahman and B. Sarma, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.N. Choudhury, Adv.

The court held that procedural safeguards must be followed in Court Martial proceedings and should be commensurate with the powers exercised by the Court Martial.

Headnote:

Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995 - The Act prohibits the manufacture, traffic, possession, sale, and consumption of liquor. Section 7 prohibits various activities related to liquor, while Section 8 provides punishment for contravention of Section 7. The Act also includes provisions for seizure and arrest in public places (Section 51) and reporting of arrest and seizure (Section 57). The court emphasized the importance of following the procedural safeguards provided by these sections in the Court Martial proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The writ appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the penalty imposed on the writ Petitioner, an army officer, by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command. The penalty included forfeiture of past service for promotion and severe reprimand. The case arose from the transportation of liquor in violation of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the procedural safeguards provided under the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It found that these safeguards were not followed in the summary Court Martial proceedings against the writ Petitioner. The court also emphasized the importance of fair and reasonable procedure in military trials and the need for procedural safeguards to be commensurate with the powers exercised by the Court Martial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings of the Summary Court Martial were vitiated due to the failure to comply with procedural safeguards. It concluded that the penalty imposed on the writ Petitioner should be quashed.

Result: The writ appeal was dismissed and the penalty imposed on the writ Petitioner was quashed.

JUDGMENT

T. Nandakumar, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4146 of 2000 and W.P.(C) No. 5199 of 2002 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge set aside the penalty imposed upon the writ Petitioner, IC-42417 F Major TK Chatterjee (Tapash Kumar Chatterjee) (at present the Lt. Col) by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command by confirming the findings of the Court Martial proceedings to the extent of:

(a) to forfeit three years past service for the purpose of promotion, and

(b) to be severely reprimanded.

2. The precise facts basing on which the Respondent/writ Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 5199 of 2002 assailing the Summery Court Martial convened against the Respondent/writ Petitioner for an offence under Army Act, i.e. Section 69 "Committing a civil offence that is to say abetment of the offence of transporting liquor, specified in Section 7(a)(i) of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995, contrary to Section 8(1) of the said Act" and the order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command dated 22.9.2000 imposing the sentence to the Respondent/writ Petitioner to the extent of forfeit three years past service for the purpose of promotion and severely reprimanded by confirming the findings of the Summary Court Martial are that the Respondent-army authority had convened the Summary Court Martial proceedings against the Respondent-writ Petitioner basing on the fact that during April 1999 the Respondent-writ Petitioner, Major TK Chatterjee was performing the duty of Office Commanding No. 4, Detachment, ISG Eastern Command located at Mizoram. On 10.8.1999, NK Pushpender Singh contacted the Respondent over writ Petitioner the telephone, by that time the Respondent was at Kolkata by availing casual leave and the Respondent-writ Petitioner ordered NK Pushpender Singh to come to Masimpur along with NK Naresh Kumar Yadav and also to bring Rs. 12,850/- (Rupees twelve thousand eight hundred and fifty) only which the Respondent-writ Petitioner had left with him before proceeding on leave. Accordingly, on 12.8.1999, NK Pushpender Singh and NK Naresh Kumar Yadav met the Respondent-writ Petitioner at Masimpur. Movement order for NK Pushpender Singh and NK Naresh Kumar Yadav for proceeding in the Maruti Gypsy bearing Regn. No. ML-01-2094 to Masimpur was signed by Nb Sub Mahender Singh. At Masimpur, Respondent-writ Petitioner also handed over a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only in the presence of Nk Naresh Kumar Yadav in a room of the Station Officers' Mess, Masimpur. For the whole amount of money, i.e. Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 12,850/-, Nk Pushpender Singh and Nk Naresh Kumar Yadav had purchased different brands of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short 'IMFL') from different sources at Masimpur.

3. It is also the further case of the Respondent-army authority that for transportation of the said liquor, i.e. IMFL, to Mizoram, the Respondent writ Petitioner also signed a letter of authority in favour of Nk Pushpender Singh and Nk Naresh Kumar Yadav without mentioning the quantity of liquors for unit purpose and not for sale. On 15.8.1999, Nk Pushpender Singh and Nk Naresh Kumar Yadav loaded their belongings and entire quantity of liquor in the Mamti Gypsy bearing registration No. ML-0-2094 and proceeded towards Aizwal. En route, at 12.45 hours when their vehicle i.e. Maruty Gypsy, reached Vairengte Excise Check Post, Mizoram, it was stopped by Sub-Inspector, Zonuthara. On inquiry made by Sub-Inspector Zonuthara as to why the said IMFL were transporting in the Gypsy, Nk Pushpender Singh showed the said letter of authority said to have been signed by the Respondent writ Petitioner. Sub-Inspector Zonuthara seized the said liquor by preparing seizure memo dated 15.8.1999 and also arrested Nk Pushpender Singh and Naresh Yadav. After preparing the seizure memo and arrest memo, Sub-Inspector Zonuthara prepared the seizure and arrest re






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top