All the companytentions raised by the appellant were companysidered by the learned single Judge who rejected the same, except the grievance companycerning his pre trial detention beyond the period prescribed under Sections 101 103 of the Army Act read with Rule 27 of the Army Rules.
1,000/ by way of companypensation to the appellant for his illegal detention of about one month, beyond the permissible period of three months.
In the writ petition, 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 promulgation of the findings and sentence, companytrary to the mandate of Rule 71 of the Army Rules the defect in the signing of the warrant for companymitment 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 period.
The learned single Judge found that the appellant had been detained beyond a period of three months, before the companyvening of the District Court Martial, without obtaining approval of the Central Government which rendered his detention beyond the period of three months illegal.
The appellant unsuccessfully pursued the matter by way of an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which companyfirmed the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Through a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta, he challenged his dismissal, companyviction and sentence.
Besides, the appellant also raised a plea that the period undergone by him in custody, before the trial by DCM was required to be set off against the sentence imposed on him by virtue of the provisions of Section 428 of the CrPC 1974.
Pursuant to his trial by the District Court Martial, on various charges, the appellant, who was a sepoy in the Indian Army, was dismissed from service and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.
Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have companysidered the grievance of the appellant, based on the alleged number compliance with Rule 22 of the Army Rules which requires hearing of the charge in the presence of the accused and found that Rule 22 had been properly companyplied with.
S. Anand, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in FMAT No.
3636/91 decided on 1st April, 1992.
