- (1.)THROUGH this petition the petitioner, who is a Lt. Colonel in the Army, is questioning the legality of his trial by General Court Martial being held at 39 EME Battalion (Transport), C/O 56 APO, and seeks the quashment of the order of convening of General Court Martial against him.
(2.)THE petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Supplies & Transport, HQ 21, Sub Area and served there during the period commencing from 4.3.1998 to 25.11.2000. By virtue of his appointment as ADST he was the Contract Operating Officer of HQ 21 Sub Area in relation to the hiring of civil hired transport. While he was serving at ASC Centre (North), Gaya (Bihar) in 2000 after having been transferred, he was attached with 39 EME Bn. C/o 56 APO in January 2003. The Commanding Officer HQ 39 EME Bn. (TPT) vide his Letter No.21201/PSK/PC/V -1 dated 2.6.2004 conveyed to the petitioner that the competent authority, i.e., the Commander 21 Sub Area had decided to try the petitioner by General Court Martial. The petitioner was also served with the Charge Sheet dated 31.5.2004 and its schedules, whereby he was charged for commission of the offences contemplated by Section 52(f) and Section 63 of Army Act for his various commissions and omissions while serving as Assistant Director, Supplies & Transport, HQ 21, Sub Area. The essence of the charges is that he with an intent to defraud the Army made over payments to different contractors who had provided civil hired transport for transportation of army material on route to Pathankote -Leh/Kargil via Rohtang. The General Court Martial commenced its proceedings on 10.6.2004 and the petitioner was formally arraigned on 30.6.2004, whereafter it was adjourned sine -die and then reassembled on 9.8.2004. The petitioner after going through the charge sheet found that all the alleged 18 offences related to the period between 1.7.1999 to 14.11.2000, so on 13.8.2004 he raised the 'plea -in -bar before the General Court Martial in terms of Rule 53 of the Army Rules for submitting that his trial was barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950. The plea set up by the petitioner was opposed to by the prosecution in its reply filed on 14.8.2004. On the same day the petitioner filed the rejoinder. However, the General Court Martial rejected the plea of petitioner on 14.8.2004 itself and directed the prosecution to lead its evidence. Being aggrieved of the rejection of his plea, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
(3.)WHILE putting the respondents on notice, this Court by way of interim direction passed the following order on 26.8.2004:
"Subject to objections from other side and till next date of hearing, it is directed that the Court Martial may proceed against the petitioner, however final order shall not be passed."

In view of the above direction, the General Court Martial proceeded against the petitioner and has ultimately found him guilty and has proposed the sentence also, but the same has not been sent for confirmation to the competent authority.