Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj115
..... order the military authority could not haveisisted that the additional special judge was to deliver the accused to such authority for their trial by court-martial.7. section 125 of the army act, 1950, is in the terms following :--'when a criminal court and a court-martial have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the ..... take such a decision, was the officer commanding of the a. s, c., centre, alwar. it was also pointed out by the public prosecutor that under section 122 of the army act, 1950, the limitation of three years prescribed for the trial by court-martial had expired with the close of the year 1966. it was also asserted by the public ..... no difference of opinion between the view of the court and the army authority on the venue of the trial.9. it may also be pointed out that according to section 122 of the army act, 1950, no trial by court-martial of any military personnel subject to the act, for any offence shall be commenced after the expiration of a period .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1039
..... panag. the petitioner also prayed for setting aside the convening order dated 24.2.2008 being unlawful.12. during pendency of the statutory appeal filed under section 27 of army act, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. 2116/2008 before the delhi high court and vide order dated 17.3.2008 the delhi high court ..... the duly constituted general court martial under the provisions of army act and rules for the offence committed by him. the trial by general court martial is conducted as per the provisions of the army act, an act framed by the parliament for trial of offenders, the said army act, 1950 has been enacted by the parliament in the light of ..... article 33 of the constitution of india and as per the provisions of the army act, the petitioner shall be afforded all opportunities to defend .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3323
..... aggrieved by the punishment awarded to them in court martial proceeding. they also seek to challenge the validity of the provisions relating to summary court martial under the army act, 1950 and the army rules, 1954. as vires has been challenged in all the petitions, they were heard together.2. in writ petition no. 2490/1987 petitioner roop singh was ..... after going through the papers supplied to him, he admitted his guilt which was recorded. he was declared deserter and held guilty of the charge under section 38(1) of the army act and dismissed from service on 8.4.1993. he preferred appeal which was rejected on 26.7.1994.5. in writ petition no. 6134/1994, ..... court cannot go into the nature and extent of punishment and substitute another punishment for the punishment awarded by the authorities. counsel pointed out that in terms of section 71 of the army act dismissal is a lesser punishment and referred to union of india v. r.k. sharma : air2001sc3053 , in this regard.45. we find substance in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC136; 1995(2)WLN67
..... of the constitution, made the requisite modification to affect the respective fundamental right. accordingly, their lordships of the supreme court have held that provisions of section 125 of the army act are not discriminatory and do not infringe the provisions of article 14 of the constitution.27. on the other hand, the learned counsel appealing for the ..... list i: naval, military and air force and any other armed forces of the union, would enable parliament to enact the army act and armed with tis power the act was enacted in july 1950. it has to be enacted by the parliament subject to the requirements of part iii of the constitution read with article 33 ..... to be reasonable.30. the phrase reasonable restriction' came up for consideration, before their lordships of the supreme court in chintamanrao v. state of m.p. : [1950]1scr759 , wherein it has been observed as under:the phrase 'reasonable restriction' in article 19(6) connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj216; 2002(3)WLN653; 2002(3)WLN653
..... the person concerned an opportunity to show cause against the order of discharge.13. the next question which arises for consideration is whether compliance of section 22 of the army act, 1950 and rule 13 of the army rules, 1954 have been made in this case or not since it is a case of discharge?14. show cause notice dated 10.1.91 ..... government.' 8. a bare perusal of section 20 of the army act, 1950 and rule 17 of the army rules, 1954 would reveal that section 20 of the army act is confined in the case of dismissal or removal or reduction and rule 17 of the army rules, 1954 provides the procedure for such act and thus section 20 of the army act, 1950 and rule 17 of the rules of ..... notice failing which it would be presumed that there was nothing to say in this regard and an action would be taken in terms of section 20 of the army act, 1950 read with rule 13 of the army rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1954). (x) though the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and 30 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1223
..... the argument relating.to the vires of. section 124 of the act. section 125 of the army act (no xlvi of 1950 is in pari materia with section 124 of the act. a contention was raked in ram sarup v. union of lndia : 1965crilj236 that section 125 of the army act is discriminatory and contravene- the provisions 'of ..... article 14 of the constitution. their lordships of 'the supreme court considered section 549 cr. p.c. (old) which is now equivalent to section ..... laid down in the aforesaid two supreme court cases considering the provisions of the army act equally apply to section 124 of the act. for. as stated above, section 125 of the army act is identical with section 124 of the act. 8. their lordships of the supreme court in prithi pal singh's case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLC54; 1994(1)WLN100
..... his explanation and defence, if any showing cause within 30 days of receipt of this notice as to why his services be not terminated under section 19 of the army act and rule 14 of the army rules.42. thus, it is clear that the show cause notice only mentions the charges but the relevant material on the basis of which ..... by this court and the court-martial was accordingly adjourned sine- die in view of the stay order passed by this court.17. according to the respondents, section 113 of the army act only provides that a general court martial would consist of not less than five officers and accordingly, the general court martial was constituted with five members and so ..... ultimately contributed a great deal towards a retrial becoming time barred after expiration of the period of 3 years from the date of offence, in terms of section 122(1) of the army act.6. even after the gcm was convened and some business transacted, the trial was once against suspended and the court adjourned from 13.11.1987 to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971WLN445
..... have been committed by the petitioner, was certainly a superior officer within the definition of clause (xxiii) of section 3 of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter called the act). it is also not in dispute, that ramlal was superior to the petitioner so far as the army ranks were concerned.5. the petitioner made four averments to challenge his conviction.6. in the first instance, the ..... learned counsel for the petitioner emphasis the expression 'his superior' appearing in section 40(a) of the act and contended that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(1)WLN252
..... as under:- 'the central government, after considering the post confirmation petition dated 7.2.1991 submitted by 1c2527 5y major virendra sharma under the provisions of section 164(2) of army act, 1950 against the finding and sentence of the general court martial convened by hq 24 inf div:, hereby reject the said petition.' (25). inspite of giving ..... has been dismissed from service, consequential orders thereto and the order dated 4.7.1991 (annex. 10-a) by which his petition under section 164(2) of the army act, 1950 (for short, 'the act') has been rejected by the central government. (2). the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner- the then a ..... mala fides, irregularities in resisting the order of punishment and passing of a non-speaking order by the central government on his petition made under section 164(2) of the act, 1950. but above all, his grievance has been in respect of not allowing him to examine the defence witnesses. in wake of the above, petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj486
..... of each right. that would be reading with article 33 a requirement which it does not enjoin. hence, every provision of the army act enacted by the parliament, if in conflict with the fundamental rights conferred by part-iii, shall have to be read subject to article ..... 33 as mental rights to the extent of inconsistency or repugnancy between part iii of the constitution and the army act.24. in delhi police non-gazetted karmchari sangh and ors. v. union of india and ors. : (1987)illj121sc , it was held ..... , 2004, the petitioner had incurred 7 red ink entries. on 1.9.2004, one more show-cause notice along with extract of section iv conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 19.7.2040 was issued to the petitioner the effect that as to ..... red ink entries.4. on 31.12.2003, respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice (annex. 3) along with the extract of section iv of conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 15.8.2003. the petitioner gave reply dated 14.1.2004 (annex. .....
Tag this Judgment!