SIGNALMAN SUNIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-256
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 26,2007

SIGNALMAN SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner was attached to 213 Transit Camp as a Storeman in LPG Store. He was tried by a Summary Court Martial for a charge of giving bribe of a sum of Rs.200/- as a motive for extension of leave of Lance /Naik Maya Prasad of 21, Rashtriya Rifles. The charge read as under: "In that he, at field, on 12 Jul 2001, by giving a sum of Rs.200.00 (Rupees two hundred only) as gratification, as a motive for extension of leave dates of No.14806861K Sepoy (Lance Naik) Kumar Maya Prasad of 21 Rashtriya Rifles, abetted No. 6627481K Driver Rakesh Kumar of 758 Independent Transport Platoon Army Service Corps (Civil General Transport) attached to 213 Transit Camp, a public servant, in the commission of an offence under Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989."
(2.) In the course of summary of evidence, the petitioner made a statement in which he inter alia stated as under: "40. Finally, I would like to say that yes a mistake was committed by me as I got carried away by Sep Hema Ram. I did not do this for my personal monetary benefit or for some one I knew personally. I would also like to mention here that I came to know only on 12 July 2001 that such a wrong practice was taking place in the transit camp. I have never acted as link man between the transient and operating Clk. I am guilty of going to Dvr. Rakesh Kumar along with Sep Hema Ram. I accept my mistake and I am really feeling abd about what I did. I would request the authorities that I will never indulge in such things in future and would also take lesson from my present mistake. I would also request them to give a fair judgment in this case."
(3.) Before the Court Martial the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge as is evident from the Court Martial proceedings of 28th June, 2004 filed as annexure-B to the writ petition. The court, accordingly, found him guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months in military custody. The petitioner has already undergone the said period of imprisonment. He has, all the same, questioned the validity of the order of conviction and the sentence in the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.