BHUWNESHWAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 01-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHUWNESHWAR SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] 
Anny Act, 1959: Sections 101to103 and 169A: 
Anny Rules, 1964-Rules 22, 27, 71-Cowt martial case~Expeditious 
C disposaf-Necessity f01'-Minimising of pre trial detention-Essentiality 
of-Pretrial illegal detention-Not a jurisdictional defect vitiating trial or 
finding~Proper and reasonable compensation to be awarded for such deten-
tion. 
Constitution of India 195(}-Articles 32, 39A and 13fr-Petitions by 
D parties in person-Necessity for scrutiny and only those certified 'compet~nt' 
to assist Court in 'person' to be evolved-Reference to Legal Aid and Advice 
Board/Supreme Courl Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid Society utilisation of 
Practice and Procedure-Supreme Court-Proceedings by parties in 
E person-Scrutiny by Committee/Authority constituted by the Court-Necessity 
for-Only these certified 'competent' to assist Court to be pennitted. 
F 
The appellant, a sepoy in the Army, pursuant to his trial on various 
charges by the District Court Martial was dismissed from service, and also 
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months'. 
He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the dismissal, 
conviction and sentence. Apart from disputing the factual foundation of 
the charges and the unsatisfactory nature of evidence to establish the same 
he also alleged violation of Rule 22 of the Army Rules; denial of his right 
to be represented by a Defending Officer at the DCM; defect in the 
G promulgation of the findings and sentence contrary to the mandate of Rule 
71 of the Army Rules; the defect in signing of the warrant for commitment 
to civil prison by the officiating Commander instead of the Head of,the 
Unit, and viOlation of Rule 27 of the Army Rules read with sections 101-103 
of the Army Act as regards his pre-trial detention beyond the permissible 
H period. A plea was also raised that the period undergone in custody, before 
56 
..
_, 
•
BHUWNESHW AR v. U.O.I. 
57 
the tri:l! by DCM was required to be set off against the sentence imposed A 
by virture of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1974. 
All the aforesaid contentions were considered and rejected by the 
Single Judge, except the grievance concerning pre-trial detention beyond 
B 
the period prescribed under Section 101-103 of the Army Act read with 
Rule 27 of the Army Rules. The Judge found that the appellant had been 
detained beyond a period of three months, before the convening of the 
DCM without obtaining approval of the Central Government which 
rendered his detention beyond the period of three months illegal, and 
accordingly directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 by way of C 
compensation to the appellant for his illegal detention of about one month, 
beyond the permissible period of three months. 
The appellant unsuccessfully pursued the matter by way of an appeal 
before the Division Bench of the High Court, which confirmed the findings 
recorded by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. 
D 
The appellant appealed to this Court, submitted in person and in 
Hindi, that this Court should reappraise the evidence and accept his 
version regarding the incident and set aside his conviction and sentence, 
undettered by the findings recorded by the District Court Martial, which E 
were confirmed by the confirming authori~y and against which tbe 
departmental appeal had also failed. He reiterated also the same grounds 
which he had urged before the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, but enhancing the compensation for pre trial 
illegal custody of the appellant, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.(a) Taking note of the increase in the number of cases in 
which parties appear in person, it is fe!t that a stage has now been reached 
when this Court, on the administrative side, is required to consider the 
desirability of providing some procedure to scrutinise the petitions and G 
screen the parties, appearing in person, and only such of the parties who 
are certified by an authority/committee as "competent" to assist the Court 
in person, may, with the leave of the Court, be permitted to argue in 
person. [62-G-H; 63-A] 
1.(b) Those of the litigants, who are not so certified, or those to whom H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
leave is not granted by the Court, should be referred to the Legal Aid and 
Advice Board or the "Supreme Court Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.