Legal News & Court Updates.

BSF Court's Jurisdiction to Try POCSO Cases Upheld by Delhi High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling, affirming that a General Security Force Court (GSFC) under the Border Security Force (BSF) Act has the jurisdiction to try offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a writ petition filed by a BSF Sub Inspector convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, holding that the POCSO Act's provisions are "in addition to and not in derogation of" other laws, thus preserving the GSFC's authority.

The court upheld the conviction and the sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service awarded to Sub Inspector Rakesh Babu by the GSFC.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rakesh Babu, a Sub Inspector in the BSF, was accused of wrongfully confining and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy on July 8, 2021, at a BSF camp in Silchar, Assam. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 342, 365, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Following an internal inquiry, Babu was tried by a GSFC, which found him guilty on all charges. The court martial concluded that the petitioner had threatened the victim with a knife, wrongfully confined him, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The GSFC sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, a decision later confirmed by the BSF's Confirming Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nityanand Singh, raised three primary legal challenges against the GSFC's verdict:

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The main contention was that the GSFC, a military tribunal, lacked the jurisdiction to try an offence under a special statute like the POCSO Act.
• Procedural Irregularity: It was argued that the petitioner was denied a fair trial as he was not provided with certified copies of witness statements, and was only permitted to inspect the case file.
• Unreasoned Decision: The petitioner claimed that the GSFC's decision was unreasoned and lacked cogent justification.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously examined each argument and rejected them, finding no grounds to interfere with the GSFC's findings under its writ jurisdiction.

On the Question of Jurisdiction

The bench decisively settled the jurisdictional question by interpreting Section 42A of the POCSO Act. The provision states that the Act's provisions "shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law." The court explained that this phrase preserves the jurisdiction vested in other authorities under different statutes.

The judgment noted:

"There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that, by using the expression 'in addition to not in derogation of', Section 42A of the POCSO Act preserves, intact, the jurisdiction vested in any authority under any other statute to try and offence which is triable under the POCSO Act."

The court then connected this with the BSF Act, explaining that a POCSO offence qualifies as a "civil offence" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which the GSFC is empowered to try under Section 72. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the GSFC to try a POCSO case remains intact and is not ousted by the special statute.

On Procedural Lapses and Reasoned Decision

The court dismissed the petitioner's other arguments as well. It held that BSF Rules 120 and 129 only entitle an accused to inspect proceedings during the trial and obtain certified copies after its conclusion. Since the petitioner was allowed to inspect the file, no prejudice was caused.

The bench also rejected the claim that the GSFC's decision was unreasoned. After reproducing extensive portions of the military court's findings, the High Court observed:

"...from a bare reading thereof, it is clear that the GSFC has provided cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at its finding."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court concluded that it does not sit in appeal over GSFC decisions and its power of judicial review is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or patent illegality. Finding no such flaw, the bench affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The judgment reinforces the parallel jurisdiction of military tribunals like the GSFC to try service personnel for civil offences, even those falling under special enactments like the POCSO Act. It clarifies that special laws do not automatically override the disciplinary and judicial mechanisms established under acts governing armed forces, unless explicitly stated.