BSF Act Empowers General Security Force Court To Try POCSO Offences: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the BSF Act empowers the General Security Force Court (GSFC) to try an offence under the POCSO Act.“Clearly, therefore, the BSF Act empowers the GSFC to try offences under the POCSO Act. These provisions, seen in conjunction with Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which saves the jurisdiction vested in other authorities under other statutes, defeats...
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the BSF Act empowers the General Security Force Court (GSFC) to try an offence under the POCSO Act.
“Clearly, therefore, the BSF Act empowers the GSFC to try offences under the POCSO Act. These provisions, seen in conjunction with Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which saves the jurisdiction vested in other authorities under other statutes, defeats Mr. Singh's contention that the GSFC did not have the jurisdiction to try a POCSO offence,” a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said.
The Bench dismissed a plea filed by one Rakesh Babu, posted as Sub Inspector (Vet) at Assam, challenging the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years, along with dismissal from service in relation to a POCSO case registered against him.
It was alleged that Babu had sodomized a 10-year old boy in 2021, and had also threatened to kill him if he reported the incident to anyone.
The sentence awarded by GSFC was challenged by Babu by preferring a pre-confirmation petition, which was rejected by the Confirming Authority.
Rejecting his plea, the Bench said that every offence triable by a criminal Court is ipso facto a “civil offence” for the purposes of the BSF Act and would therefore be an “offence” as defined in Section 2(1)(q) of the Act and, consequently, a GSFC would have the jurisdiction to try any person who alleged to have committed such an offence.
The Court also rejected Babu's submission that he was not given certified copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and was also only allowed to inspect the file.
It said that if Babu was allowed to inspect the copies of the said prosecution witnesses, no prejudice could have resulted as a consequence of Babu not having been provided certified copies.
“We, therefore, find no occasion to interfere with the impugned decision of the GSFC, which accordingly stands affirmed in its entirety. The writ petition is therefore dismissed,” the Court said.
Title: RAKESH BABU v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1109