The Cr.P.C. is not applicable to BSF personnel, and the charge-sheet can contain multiple charges for similar offences under the BSF Acts & Rules.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and validity of the charge-sheet containing four different charges for committing offence of slapping and punching to his subordinate jawans subject to BSF Acts & Rules.

2. Heard Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India and other respondents.

3. The petitioner is the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) under the Border Security Force(BSF) and subject to the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Rules, 1969. In course of his service under 130 Bn. BSF he has been faced with a charge-sheet(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) consisting of four different offences of simple hurt alleged to have been committed on four different persons altogether on four different times and places on four different context.

4. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence, if it is not part of the same transaction, then, similar offences cannot be clubbed together. Further, if the offence is not based on same facts, then also various offences committed on different dates cannot be clubbed together. It is his further contention that eleven numbers of allegations were investigated by a single Staff Court of Inquiry(in short, SCOI) which was not permissible in law and thus, the entire proceedings before the SCOI was vitiated and the charge-sheet submitted on the basis of this SCOI is liable to be set aside.

5. The Staff Court of Inquiry(SCOI) after considering the materials brought before it found that the writ petitioner might be put to trial for committing four offences to be tried by General Security Force Court(in short, GSFC). According to Mr. Kar Bhowmik, the convening of GFSC to try four different charges in a single trial is illegal and separate charges are to be framed for committing four offences and each of the charges has to be tried by four different trials. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Rules 74, 75 and 76 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969(in short, BSF Rules) which, for the convenience, may be reproduced herein under:

“74. Plea in bar of trial.-(1) An accused before pleading to a charge may offer a plea that the trial is barred under section 75 or section 76. If he does so,-

(a) the accused may adduce evidence in support of the plea and the prosecutor may adduce evidence in answer thereto, and

(b) the prosecutor may address the Court in answer to the plea and the accused may reply to the prosecutor’s address.

(2) If the Court allows the plea it shall adjourn and report to the convening officer :

Provided that if there is another charge or another charge-sheet before the Court, the Court may, before adjourning under this rule, proceed with the trial of such other charge or other charge-sheet.

(3) When a Court reports to the convening officer under this rule, the convening officer shall,-

(a) if he approves the decision of the Court to allow the plea,-

(i) dissolve the Court; or

(ii) where there is another charge or another charge-sheet before the Court to which the plea does not relate and which the Court has not tried, direct the Court to proceed with the trial of such other charge or charge-sheet only.

(b) if he disapproves the decision of the Court to allow the plea-

(i) direct the Court to try the charge; or

(ii) where there is another charge or another charge-sheet before the Court to which the plea does not relate and which the Court has not tried direct the Court to proceed with the trial of such other charge or charge-sheet only; or

(iii) convene a fresh Court to try the accused.

75. Application for separate trial.- (1) Where two or more accused are charged jointly, any one of the accused may, before pleading to the charge, apply to the Court to be tried separately o