Point of Law : No limitation on the part of the High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court can definitely interfere with the findings of the GSFC if it finds that the finding reached by the GSFC is perverse and contrary to the provisions of law or such infliction in the opinion of the High Court has led to failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondents Union of India.

[2] By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged (i) the impugned Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the General Security Force Court (GSFC), by which he has been found to be guilty of the charge punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), (ii) the impugned confirmation Order dated 06.02.2019(Annexure-9), by which the pre-confirmation petition dated 12.12.2018 submitted by the petitioner against the finding dated 7.12.2018 was rejected and the findings was confirmed and (iii) the Order dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-10) by which the petitioner on being found guilty under Section 10 of the POCSO Act was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5 years and also dismissed from service.

[3] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 30.04.1999 and was working as such till he was punished and dismissed from service. On 06.03.2018, one girl namely, Suchana Chakma aged about 12 years, a resident of Tablabagh, Lunglei lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Commandant 1st Bn, BSF, Melteram, Lunglei alleging that the petitioner molested her by forcibly touching her breast. Pursuant to the complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant, 1st Bn, BSF and he submitted his report to the Commandant, 1st Bn, BSF recommending the initiation of strict action against the petitioner. The Commandant, 1st Bn, BSF instead of taking necessary action at his level forwarded the detailed report to the higher authority i.e. Inspector General of BSF and the said authority referred the matter to the GSFC for trial. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued on 11.11.2018 and on the same date a Defending Officer under the provision of Rule 63(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 (BSF Rules) was appointed and also the Members, Waiting Members, Law Officer and Prosecutor for the GSFC were appointed as well.

[4] The GSFC then proceeded to try the case against the petitioner and in the process, prosecution witnesses were examined, cross examined and reexamined. Consequently, a finding was arrived at on 17.12.2018, by which the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charge. Although, the petitioner submitted a pre-confirmation petition against the finding on 12.12.2018 but the same was rejected on 06.02.2019 by the Confirming Authority and consequently, vide the impugned Order dated 01.03.2019, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5 years and he was dismissed from service as well. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

[5] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the finding or sentence of the GSFC in terms of Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, the writ petition is maintainable and can be entertained by this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Director General, Border Security Force & Others Vs. Iboton Singh (KH), 2007(1) GLT 903.

[6] The learned counsel submits that as per Section 48 of the BSF Act, punishment may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons belonging to the BSF subject to the BSF Act and convicted by the GSFC. In the present case, the impugned finding dated 17.12.2018, the rejection of the pre-confirmation petition vide Order dated 06.02.2019 and the order of Sentence dated 01.03.2019 only states that the petitioner is found guilty of the charged offence. Therefore, as he has not been convicted, there is no question of imposing sentence upon him. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Rajib Choudhury Vs. Union of India & Others, 2015 (1) GLT 185.

[7] The learned co