Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner, Ex-Sepoy Chander Singh son of Vir Singh, has filed this writ petition for quashing the proceedings of summary court martial and for issuance of appropriate direction to quash the findings and sentence of the Summary Court Martial dated 17.9.90 with the consequential prayer to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to grant all consequential benefits.

(2). The petitioner is said to have joined service in the Indian Army as Combatant Sepoy/Cook on 2.12.1983 and his last posting was in the 17th BN Mech. Inf. C/o 56 APO there he was involved in alleged misconduct/offence under Sec. 40(A) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short as ``Act of 1950) against one Nb. Subedar Jaswant Singh on 15.8.90 at about 9.00 PM. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had given slap to Nb. Subedar Jaswant Singh. The petitioner was immediately arrested on 15.8.90 itself and placed under close arrest in the Military custody. It is alleged by the petitioner that on next day i.e. 16.8.90, he was ordered to be marched before respondent no.4 i.e. Commandant who had ordered Maj. K.C. Achappa to record the Summary evidence. When the petitioner was marched be- fore respondent no.4, all the three prosecution witnesses were produced before respondent no.4 and had deposed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the witnesses were not produced one by one while recording the Summary Evidence. It is stated that he was not allowed to cross-examine any of three witnesses while recording the summary evidence by Major Achappa and Rule 22(1) of the Army Rules (for short as ``Rules) were violated which rule prescribes that every charge against a person subject to the Act, other than an officer, shall be heard in the presence of the accused. The accused shall have full liberty to cross-examine any witness against him, and to call any witnesses and make any statement in his defence.

(3). The petitioner submits that when he was marched before respondent no.4 and when summary of evidence was recorded, the petitioner had not been charge-sheeted till then Even. though Mj. Achappa was asked to record the summary of evidence on 16.8.90, but the summary of evidence was infact recorded on 17.8.90.Rule 23 prescribes procedure for taking down the summary of evidence and it has been provided in that rule that incase of summary of evidence is taken, that shall be taken in presence of accused and he will have a right to cross-examine the witnesses. The evidence is to be read over to the accused and shall be signed by him. A safeguard had been provided to the accused who is to be informed and asked whether accused wanted to make any statement and further he was to be informed that he is not obliged to make any statement or say anything and whatever he says, shall be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence against him. Any such statement shall also be taken down and read over to accused and signed by him. It is further provided that accused shall be entitled to call for the defence witnessses, if he so desires and the statement of defence witnesses shall be recor- ded in the language being understood by the accused.

(4). It is submitted by the petitioner that summary of evidence was recorded in English language which language the petitioner did not know nor did he understand the English language. It is submitted by the petitioner that right from 15.8.90, he continued to be in detention and under close arrest in Military custody without remanding him for trial by a Court Martial which is to be done without unnecessarily delay or any other action as required vide Rule 24. rule 24 prescribes that after recording the summary of evidence, remand of accused shall be considered by the commanding officer who shall either remand the accued for trial by a court martial or refer the case to the proper Superior Military Authority; or rehear the case and either dismiss the charge or dispose it of summarily. It is provided

Click Here to Read the rest of this document