IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
ALOK ARADHE, J
Jaswant Singh – Appellant
Vs.
UOI and ors. – Respondents
SWP No. 1932 of 2013, MP No.2841 of 2013
Decided on : 01-03-2017
JURISDICTION - BORDER SECURITY FORCE - Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir - [Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the cause of action and the legal rights of the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing that the legal right claimed by the petitioner was infringed or threatened to be infringed within the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector in the Border Security Force, sought quashment of an order sentencing him to severe punishment for accidentally firing shots from his weapon, causing injuries to a constable during a counter-insurgency operation. The petitioner also sought restoration to the original position with consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, and therefore, the writ petition failed. The court emphasized that the petitioner's mere posting within the territorial jurisdiction at the time of filing the petition did not confer territorial jurisdiction on the court.
Issues: The issues involved the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the cause of action and the legal rights of the petitioner, as well as the delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner must establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition failed as the court concluded that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector in Border Security Force vide order dated 02.11.1998 and at the time of filing writ petition, the petitioner was posted in Jammu as Inspector. The petitioner after completion of his training was posted on the post of Sub Inspector, BSF with 64 Bn of BSF which was stationed at Lamzang Churachand pur District Manipur. The petitioner on 15.02.2000 was deployed as part of patrol party in counter-insurgency operation. On 15.02.2000, two rounds of bullets accidentally went out from the 9 MM Carbine sub-automatic weapon carried by the petitioner. One of the stray bullets hit on the ground whereas other bullet hit Constable Girish Chand on his right hip, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Police Station Manipur received the FIR on 15.02.2000, however the same was not registered.
3. Court of Enquiry was held during the month of Feb., 2000 against the petitioner which was presided over by Deputy Commandant of the Border Security Force. In the Court of Enquiry during investigation, the statements of as many as seven witnesses were recorded. The Court of Inquiry vide order dated 22.02.2000 after examining entire evidence and the material on record came to the finding that the firing of gun shots from the weapon carried by the petitioner was not intentional but the same was fired inadvertently from his carbine machine.
4. After lapse of more than three years, charge-sheet dated 23.12.2003 was submitted against the petitioner in which inter alia it was alleged that while on duty on 15.02.2000, the petitioner voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Constable Girish Chand by firing two shots from his gun carbine machine. For the alleged offence, the petitioner is to be tried by General Security Force Court. The petitioner was served charge-sheet dated 23.12.2003. The General Security Force Court was held in which Constable Girish Chand retracted from his earlier statement which was made before the Court of Enquiry and stated that he had strained relations with the petitioner and petitioner with a view to take revenge fired on him. The General Security Force Court by order dated 09.02.2004 held that charges against the petitioner are duly established and sentenced the petitioner. The aforesaid order was affirmed in appeal before the Inspector General of Border Security Force vide order dated 09.02.2004. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.05.2004 before the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Border Security Force, however, the representation was returned to the petitioner vide communication dated 23.06.2004. Thereafter the petitioner submitted representation to the Director General of Border Security Force on 28.07.2004. The petitioner vide communication dated 16.12.2004 was informed that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 16.12.2004. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force on 10.02.2005 as well as mercy petition dated 17.07.2008 for review of GSFC sentence which is addressed to Director General, Border Security For
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.