1969 (3) TMI 100 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of Petition: Compliance Rule Not Invalid, Habeas Corpus Limitation

S. Sundarajan Versus Union of India and Ors.

The petition was dismissed as the alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950, did not invalidate the trial and conviction. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of detention and conviction by the General Court-martial.2. Compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950.3. Admission of confessional statement and cross-examination of defense witness.4. Maintainability of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.5. Scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.6. Locus standi of the petitioner's wife to file the petition.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Detention and Conviction by the General Court-martial:The petitioner, convicted by a General Court-martial on charges of criminal misappropriation of Air Force Public Fund Accounts, sought a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of illegal detention and conviction. The petitioner argued that his conviction was not in accordance with the procedure established by law.2. Compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950:The petitioner contended that he was not given an effective opportunity to defend himself as required under Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950. He alleged that the Commanding Officer did not allow him to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense adequately. The return affidavit by the respondents denied these allegations, asserting that Rule 15 was complied with in letter and spirit, and the compliance was proved at the trial by the petitioner's own witness.3. Admission of Confessional Statement and Cross-examination of Defense Witness:The petitioner challenged the admission of his confessional statement as evidence, arguing it was not voluntary. Additionally, he objected to the cross-examination of his defense witness, Fit. Lt. S. C. Bhately, by the Prosecutor. The respondents maintained that the confessional statement was admitted after due consideration and that cross-examination of the witness was justified as he was examined on oath by the petitioner.4. Maintainability of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus:A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that habeas corpus is not available to a prisoner serving a legal sentence passed by a Court-martial. The court discussed whether it could examine the legality of a conviction and sentence by a duly constituted Court-martial in habeas corpus proceedings. It was concluded that habeas corpus cannot be used to question the correctness of a decision of a competent court, including a Court-martial, unless there is a jurisdictional error.5. Scope of the High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:The petitioner's counsel argued that Article 21 of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, allows the High Court to examine the legality of the conviction and sentence. The court acknowledged that while it has the jurisdiction to scrutinize the proceedings of a Court-martial, this jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the person was subject to military law and whether the Court-martial was properly convened and constituted. The court held that Article 226 does not expand this jurisdiction to include errors of procedure that do not affect the Court-martial's jurisdiction.6. Locus Standi of the Petitioner's Wife to File the Petition:The petition was filed by the petitioner's wife, which raised the issue of her locus standi. The court recognized that a writ of habeas corpus can be filed by someone other than the prisoner, such as a spouse or a person with a legitimate interest. However, for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner must be directly affected by the order. The court did not express a final opinion on this issue due to the dismissal of the petition on other grounds.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Air Force Act Rules, 1950, did not vitiate the trial and conviction. The court held that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a Court-martial's decision unless there is a jurisdictional error. The petitioner's wife had the locus standi to file the habeas corpus petition, but the court did not decide on her standing for a writ of certiorari. The judgments of the concurring judges were in agreement with the main opinion, leading to the dismissal of the petition.