- (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties.
(2.) AT the outset it is relevant to mention that this writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31-7-2009. Thereafter, Counsel for the petitioner moved an applica­tion for recall of the aforesaid order, which remained pending and ultimately came up for orders on 4-11-2009. As the cause shown for absence was found sufficient, the writ peti­tion was restored. As the matter was quite old, Counsel for the parties consented for final dis­posal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the arguments were finally heard. The Parliament enacted Armed Forces Tribunal Act, which received the assent of the President on December 25,2007 and was pub­lished in the Gazette of India dated 28th De­cember, 2007. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec­tion (2) of section 1 of the Armed Forces Tri­bunal Act, 2007, appointed the 15th day of June, 2008 as the date on which the provisions of the Act shall come into force. The Regional Bench at Lucknow was inaugurated only on Saturday 7th November, 2009 and became functional later on. Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act deals with the transfer of pending cases. In the instant case, the argu­ments were heard on 4-11-2009 and as such it cannot be said to be a 'case pending'.
(3.) BY means of this writ petition, the peti­tioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by General Officer, Commanding -in-Chief, Central Command, Headquarters Cen­tral Command, Lucknow [opposite party No.2] dated 20-4-1993 and also prayed for quashing the verdict and sentence awarded by the Summary Court Martial on 8-1-1993 as embodied in Annexures Nos. 11 and (sic) to the writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner did not have a fair trial, adequate opportunity was not afforded to challenge the Officers composing the Sum­mary Court Martial, which is a statutory right under Section 130 of the Army Act, 1950; in spite of request the opportunity to cross-ex­amine the vital witnesses was denied; the as­sistance of civil lawyer was also not given in spite of specific written request; thus the find­ings of summary court martial are perverse being based on illegal and irrelevant evidence; and the sentence awarded to him is too harsh.;