Honble SAXENA, J. — This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23rd July,1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23.5.1994 filed under section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (inshort, the Act) by the D.I.G., B.S.F. Bikaner (non-petitioner no.2) and directed that the accused-petitioner be handed over to the competent authority for being tried by the Security Force Court and discharged his bail bonds.

(2). Stated in succinct the relevant facts are that the petitioner-Gajendra Singh C.T.No.8600-80051 is posted in 06 Battery 1044, Border Security Arti Regiment, B.S.F., Bikaner. While ha was absent without leave, on the FIR dated 18.2.1993 lodged by one Chandan Singh, a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station, Mandore Distt. Jodhpur. After investigation, the S.H.O. filed a challan against the petitioner for the offences under sections 452, 307 and 323 IPC in the Court of learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur, who in turn committed the case by his order dated 9.5.1994 to the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. It appears that on 16.5.1994, the D.I.G., B.S.F. Bikaner moved an application under section 80 of the Act before the learned ACJM, but the said application was not decided by the latter on the ground since he had already committed the case to the Sessions Court, he was not seized of the matter. The D.I.G., B.S.F., Bikaner therefore, submitted another application dated 23. 5.1994 under section 80 of the Act before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur alleging that the competent authority has decided that the said case against the petitioner should be instituted before the Security Force Court and prayed that the accused-petitioner should be ordered to be given in the B.S.F. custody. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his impugned order accepted the said application. Hence, this revision petition.

(3). I have heard Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sarva Shri U.C. Bhargava and S.S.Lal, learned counsel for the non-petitioners and perused the available relevant record.

(4). Mr. Bora has strenuously canvassed that the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner while he was absent from duty without leave, hence such an offence is not liable to be tried by Security Force Court, and that the learned ACJM had already taken cognizance against the petitioner for the said offences and even committed the case on 9.5.1994 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and till then the competent authority under the Act did not exercise its discretion under Section 80 to decide that the case against the petitioner should be instituted before the Security Force Court, therefore, the provisions of Section 80 of the Act could not be pressed into service at such a late stage. Another limb of his argument is that the offences levelled against the petitioner are not covered under Rule 41 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules,1969) but those fall within Rule 42 and, therefore such a case should not be tried by the Security Force Court. He has asserted that the word —may used in Rule 42 cannot be interpreted as directory, but is mandatory and since the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioner during absence without leave, he cannot be claimed for trial by the Security Force Court. His last contention is that the police arrtested the petitioner from B.S.F. Camp, Bikaner, where he was under the close arrest and that on 30.4.1994 he was enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Hence, by cancellation of his bail bonds, his valuable right as a citizen about his freedom during trial has been infringed because after the impugned order he has again been put under close arrest by the B.S.F. authorities. According to Shri Bora, the learned Sessions Judge has mis-interpreted the provisions of Rule 42 of the Rules 1969 and Section 80 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document