Srinagar, June 2: A local court on Wednesday extended the judicial remand of the suspended   paramilitary BSF commandant R K Birdi and his subordinate Lakhvinder Kumar accused of killing the Nishat teenager, Zahid Farooq, in February this year.

 Meanwhile, lawyers representing the state government completed their arguments. They vehemently opposed the application filed by paramilitary BSF seeking the transfer of case to their court.
 
 After hearing the arguments of prosecution, court extended the judicial remand of both the accused and directed the Superintendent Central Jail to produce the accused under proper police custody on the next date of hearing on June 18.

 Earlier, Public Prosecutor Abdul Aziz Teli rejected BSF’s claim that it was force’s discretion to institute court for the proceedings and said the offences committed by the accused Commandant and his subordinate, Lakhvinder Kumar, were civil offences triable by any local criminal court and not by Security Forces court under the provisions of BSF Act of 1968.

 He said the civil offence had been defined under section 2 (d) of the BSF Act of 1968 which reads, “Civil offence means an offence which is triable by the criminal court,” he added.

 “The section 46 of the BSF Act is subject to the provision of Section 47 of the same Act.  The BSF court has no jurisdiction to try the offences for which the accused have been chargesheeted. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed,” the prosecution added.

 Pertinently, on April 7 the BSF had filed an application before the CJM seeking a stay in the civil proceedings against the accused and transfer of the case to BSF Court.

 The BSF quoting the section 80 of BSF Act had said when a criminal court or a Security Force court has jurisdiction in the respect of an offence it shall be the discretion of the official within whose command the accused person is serving to institute court for the proceedings.

 Teli contested the claim saying, “Section 80 of the BSF Act was applicable when an offence is triable by both Security Forces court as well as by a local Criminal court and both courts have concurrent jurisdiction. However, in the present case there was no concurrent jurisdiction to the local court and to the Security Forces court, so section 80 of BSF Act was not applicable,” he said.

 The BSF had prayed before the CJM to stay proceedings against the accused. It had requested the court to forward all connected documents and exhibits in the case to the paramilitary force as per Section 549 of CrPC 1989 of JK for instituting proceedings against them under the Act and Rules made there under.

 Prosecution said, “Section 549 of CrPC is applicable to military authorities liable to be tried by the Court Marshal. Under the provision of BSF Act of 1968 no Court Marshal is provided, since the offences did not fall under Arms Act so section 549 is non-applicable.”

 Teli said the accused were posted in Gulmarg and were not posted in Srinagar on that fateful day. Hence they were not performing official duty to maintain law and order in the city. “The activities of the accused did not fall within the ambit of BSF Act,” he added.

 Teli said the BSF had waved their option for the trial of the accused in the favour of the local court after it voluntarily handed over the accused to police. “The BSF was made aware that the accused have committed a murder of an innocent boy, who was not subject to the BSF Act,” he added. 

 Prosecution said in the present circumstances public at large doubted the trials conducted by the Security Forces Court. “If the case is tried by the Forces Court it will be against the interest of the country,” he added.

 Teli prayed that the application may be rejected and the trial should be conducted by a local court.

Lastupdate on : Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:00:00 IST