Maj Gen. Hira, General Officer Commanding, 23 Mountain Division, of which the petitioner was an officer, passed an order directing the revision of the sentence.
In any case, the companyfirming authority should have given a hearing to the affected party.
It was he that directed the revision of the sentence passed on the petitioner.
On receiving a reply in the negative, the Court, after companysidering the observations of the companyfirming authority, revoked the earlier sentence which they had imposed on the petitioner and sentenced him to be cashiered and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
The Court Martials verdict should be unfettered.
The present petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the Chief of the Army Staff, after setting aside the order passed by Maj Gen. Hira.
The argument is that this order was in such terms that the Court Martial which revised the sentence was companypelled to and was left with numberalternative but to enhance the sentence and that this was against all principles of natural justice.
D. P. Bhilla, the Officiating General Officer Commanding 23 Mountain Division, referred the finding and sentence for companyfirmation to the Chief of the Army Staff, who in due companyrse companyfirmed the finding and the sentence.
He was tried before the Summary General Court Martial on the charge of companymitting robbery at Hajiganj by causing fear of instant hurt to the Custodian of the United Bank Ltd., of certain properties belonging to the Bank and also the personal property of the Manager of the Bank as well as of a Chowkidar of the Bank.
On 11th December, 1971 he was in a place called Hajiganj.
Alagiriswami, J. The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Army who served in Bangla Desh.
Thereafter the petitioner was brought before the same Court Martial, as had tried him earlier, and he was asked whether he wanted to address the Court.
Shri A.K. Sen appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised four points in support of his companytention that the order passed against the petitioner should be quashed The authority to companyfirm the sentence passed by a Court Martial does number companyfer on the companyfirming authority the power to enhance the sentence.
That authority cannot, therefore, achieve that object indirectly by directing the revision of the sentence.
The officer who finally companyfirmed the sentence on the petitioner should also have heard the petitioner.
The companyfirmation can be made only by the officer who companyvened the Court Martial and number by a different officer as was done in this case.
