IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1736 OF 2006 Nasir Husain .. Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Petitioner present in-person, Ms.P.H.Kantharia, Amicus curies. Mr.J.C.Satpute with Mr.H.V.Mehta for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : MARCH 20TH, 2009. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. On the last occasion when the Petitioner 1 appeared in person, we asked him to engage a counsel but he did not do so. Therefore, we requested the Advocate Ms.P.H.Kantharia who is present in Court to represent the case of the Petitioner. She completely represented him today. She took us to the case file and argued the case to the best of her ability. But, after we started dictating the Judgment, the Petitioner submitted that the counsel was not able to represent him properly. Therefore, we permitted him to argue. The Petitioner argued himself. So after hearing the learned Counsel, we heard the Petitioner as well. 3. The Petitioner was serving in Indian Air Force as a sergeant. The charge against him was that on the day of occurrence, he was travelling in Rajdhani Express from Mumbai to Delhi. There was allegation against him that he misbehaved and outraged the modesty of a girl who was 15 years old. The girl was accompanying her mother. 4. While travelling to Mumbai by Train No.2951 in the night of 29th October, 2004 at about 20.00 hrs., he used criminal force on Ms.”X” 2 daughter of Dr.Mrs.“Y” (the actual names are not mentioned) the Petitioner outraged the modesty of said “X”. After framing of charge evidence was led. The victim deposed against the Petitioner. Her mother also deposed against the Petitioner. We are of the view that we cannot re-appreciate the evidence recorded during the Court Martial in this Court under writ jurisdiction as we are not hearing the Appeal. But at the same time, in order to see that justice is done, we have gone through the evidence and we do not find the evidence in any way insufficient or not pointing to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, even if the evidence was re- appreciated, the Court would come to the same conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of outraging the modesty of “X”. Since he belongs to a defence force, such conduct could not be condoned. 5. On the question of following the procedure established, only one objection was taken during the hearing of this Petition that in terms of relevant rules the Petitioner was not given choice of officers amongst whom he could select one officer who would defend him. We have seen from 3 the record that certain names of officers were made available and when the officer who was finally chosen, was asked to defend the Petitioner. The Petitioner fully participated in the Court Martial. The record of the case also reveals that the defending officer had at all times conducted the case on the instructions of the Petitioner and at no point of time the Petitioner had expressed any doubt about the capacity or capability of the defending officer. We feel that this is too late to complain because the record does not show that by not giving choice of the defending officer to the Petitioner, he was prejudiced. Although, the Respondents mentioned that the choice of the defending officer was given to the Petitioner and he had himself selected the officer who defended him. 6. For all these reasons, we do not find any merits in this Petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. At this stage, the Petitioner seeks leave to file an Appeal against the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not find any reason 4 for which leave should be granted as substantial question of law is not involved. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 5