Dismissed

Ex H/C Sunahari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Sept 2018SAW/899/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal of a BSF Head Constable who was dismissed from service and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The court accepted the validity of the plea of guilty recorded during the record of evidence proceedings, rejecting the appellant's claim that he did not plead guilty.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Ex H/C Sunahari Lal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 899/2018

¶3

Ex. Head Constable Sunahari Lal (No. 81298015) aged about 56 years, r/o Village Balipurgarhi P.O. Paithan District Farrukhabad U.P. Presently at Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi.

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General SHQ Border Security Force Bikaner (Raj.)

¶8

The Inspector General BSF (R & G Frontier) Mandore Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

The Commandant, 54 Bn. BSF C/O 56 A.P.O.

¶10

Shri P.K. Wahal (The Court holding the Trial) C/O The Commandant, 54 Bn. BSF C/O 56 A.P.O.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Swami For Respondent(s) : --

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

07/09/2018

¶16

The appellant was a Head Constable attached with the 54^th Battalion BSF. A contingent of the Battalion, of which the appellant was a part, was deputed at Station Headquarter BSF in Bikaner for annual collective training. Training being completed on 12^th January, 2002, in the evening the contingent was directed to proceed to Baramulla where the Battalion was stationed. The BSF personnel including the appellant who were, post completion of training, to return to Baramulla boarded the train at Bikaner at

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[SAW-899/2018]

¶19

22.30 hours on 12^th January, 2002. The train was to take them to Jammu. When the train reached Bhatinda in the morning it was reported that the appellant was missing. He had left the holdall in the compartment. The train reached Jammu at 2.00 PM. The next day, on reaching Baramulla this information was conveyed to the Commandant of the Battalion who took cognizance of the offence report as contemplated by Rule 43 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The appellant joined the unit on 23^rd January, 2002 and was placed under arrest. Prima facie offences under Sections 19(a) and 32(b) of the BSF Act, 1968 were made out.

¶20

Proceeding under Rule 45 of the Rules of 1969 the Commandant took the view that it was a case where record of evidence needs to be prepared. On 13.2.2002 the Commandant directed 2-IC Shri U.K.Nayal to prepare the record of evidence. 3. During record of evidence HC Bhagwan Das was examined as PW1, HC Puran Singh as PW2, Constable Surender Nayak as PW3, HC Gajanan as PW4 and Dy.Commandant R.Chakraborty as PW5. The cumulative effect of the testimony of the said witnesses is that after the appellant alongwith members of the Force boarded the train at Bikaner in the night of 12^th January, 2002 he was found missing with arms and ammunition which were issued to him. Testimony of HC Gajanan concerns issuance of arms and ammunition to the appellant. Testimony of others establishes the appellant missing from the train. Testimony of Dy.Commandant R.Chakraborty brings out that the SP (City), Mathura sent a message to the Force Headquarter regarding recovery of briefcase belonging to the appellant having arms and ammunition. The same was found abandoned.

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[SAW-899/2018]

¶23

Relevant would it be to highlight that during record of evidence the appellant was present when the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine the witnesses. He did not cross-examine a single witness. 2-IC forwarded the record of evidence to the Commandant of the 54^th Battalion who considering the same framed two charges against the appellant. The first was of unauthorized absence and the second which was more serious was of being negligent in keeping the arms and ammunition issued to him in proper custody resulting in the same being lost but recovered by the police at Mathura.

¶24

A charge-sheet was served upon the appellant. At the arraignment he pleaded guilty. In view of the plea of guilt the record of evidence was read out and the penalty of being dismissed from service and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months was inflicted upon the appellant.

¶25

Unfortunately, while recording the plea of guilt appellant’s signatures have not been taken. The whole case of the appellant is that plea of guilt was wrongly recorded. He did not plead guilty.

¶26

The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who has noted that statutory petitions filed were also dismissed. The learned Single Judge has noted that on the one hand the appellant claims not to have pleaded guilty but in the statutory petitions he pleads that the plea of guilt was under inducement.

¶27

Now, both cannot co-exist.

¶28

In our opinion, the issue needs to be decided with reference to what happened during recording of evidence. As noted above, during proceeding for recording of evidence, which proceedings

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[SAW-899/2018]

¶31

have been signed by the appellant, five witnesses were examined in his presence who proved the indictment. The appellant did not cross-examine any witness.

¶32

The same witnesses were the witnesses at the trial. Obviously the appellant knew that he had no case. That he had absconded enroute when the train left for Bikaner and was to reach Jammu was admitted by him when he joined the unit belatedly. That the arms and ammunition issued to him were recovered by the police at Mathura was a fact which he could not controvert. Obviously, he pleaded guilty to the charge. 11. The proceedings at the recording of evidence break the impasse.

¶33

In this connection it would be relevant to note that in the writ petition filed by the appellant he admitted that he was undergoing annual collective training at Bikaner till 12^th January, 2002. He pleads that he applied for leave. He pleads that he received information over the telephone of his daughter being sick. He pleads that he applied for leave. He pleads that he was directed to proceed with the unit to Baramulla. He admits that he boarded the train at Bikaner at the night of 12^th January, 2002 and claims that when the train reached Bhatinda at 8.30 next day morning he was disturbed. He got down from the train alongwith his suit-case which was having the security weapons. He boarded a train from Bhatinda and reached Panipat and therefrom he took a train to go to Aligarh. The next day he boarded a bus and enroute his suit-case containing arms and ammunition was lost. He claims that he told co-passengers in the bus of his suit-case being lost. He claims that co-passengers apprehended some miscreants from whom weapons were recovered.

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

[SAW-899/2018]

¶36

We note this to bring home the point that in the writ petition the appellant admits having parted company with his buddies. His make belief story of his suit-case being stolen and miscreants being apprehended is unbelievable. As noted above, SP, Mathura gave information to the Battalion Commandant that arms and ammunition issued to the appellant were recovered at Mathura Railway Station.

¶37

We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

¶38

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶39

Parmar

Ex H/C Sunahari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex H/C Sunahari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Kumar Sanghi and Anr. Vs Ratan Kumar Sanghi and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sahdev Gujrati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

State and Ors. Vs Vikas Nehra and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Rajendra Kumar Bhola

N.I.C.Ltd., Udaipur Vs Smt.Shanta Devi and Ors.