Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 125 choice between criminal court and court martial Page 6 of about 968 results (0.254 seconds)

Union of India and ors. Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... relied upon the decision of the delhi high court in brig. a. k. malhotra. in the said decision, the delhi high court held that under section 71 of the army act, 1950 (`act' for short), forfeiture of pension was provided as a measure of punishment for offences tried by the court martial and if the court martial did not ..... a charge-sheet dated 30.12.1992 containing the following charges : first charge such an offence as is mentioend in clause (f) of section 52 army act of the army act with intent to defraud, section 52(f) in that he, at ambala cantonment, on 14 feb.1990, while commanding 27 company supply (asc), being contract operating officer for ..... march, 1990, consequently no animals were held in reserve in the said butchery during that period. fifth charge an omission prejudicial to good order and military army act discipline, section 63 in that he, at ambala cantonment, between 15th january 1990 and march 1990, while officer commanding 27 company supply (asc) and responsible for overall .....

Sunil Kumar P.S. Naik (Operator), Field Regiment Vs. the Union of Indi ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi

..... automatically in causing reduction to ranks by operation of law. therefore, there was no justification to impose both the punishments together. 9. it is true that according to army act section 71(e) and (f), dismissal from service and reduction to ranks are two different punishments. but,when in a given case, the only punishment of dismissal from ..... and its effect, that, the said statement had been used as an evidence against him, which is in contravention to the provisions of cr.p.c; that, army act sec.46(a) has been misinterpreted and digressed in order to make the petitioner a scapegoat; that, he was not given a proper chance to defend his case; that ..... specific order is required in such matters. but, where the summary court martial decided to impose both the punishments as per army act section 71 (e) and 71 (f), there was no question of any application of army act section 77. 10. we have to see whether both the punishments of dismissal from service and reduction to ranks could be imposed .....

Pritam Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1980CriLJ296

..... , ministry of defence gazette notification no. 17-e dated 5 sept. 1977 is reproduced below:sro 17-e. in exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the army act 1950 (46 of 1950) and in supersession of the notification of the government of india in the ministry of defence, sro 6-e dated the 28th november, 1962, the ..... central government hereby declares that all persons subject to that act who are not on active service under clause (1) of section 3 thereof 'shall, while serving in ..... murder of a person not subject to the army act it further is not controverted that under section 69 of the army act, any person subject to the army act, who commits any civil offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence, against the army act and if charged therewith under section 69 of the -army act, shall be liable to be tried by a .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Ajit Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the army act ). after the conclusion of the gcm proceedings, the respondent was awarded punishment vide order dated 3.4.2003, as has been referred to hereinabove. d. the sentence awarded in the gcm was confirmed by the competent authority, i.e. chief of the army staff, while dealing with the petition under section 164(2) of the army act. ..... submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.6. relevant parts of the chargesheet issued to the respondent read as under:- i) charged under army act section 52(a)- theft of 30 grenade hand no.36 high explosive and160 rounds of 5.56 mm insas on 17/18.3.2002. ii) charged under ..... army act section 52(a) - theft of carbine machine gun 9 mm on 27.9.2002. iii) charged under army act section 39(a) absent from duty without leave from 26.2.2002 to 8.3.2002. iv) charged under army act section 39(a) absent from duty without leave from 12.6.2002 to .....

S. Ramachander Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Chief of Army an ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... by the accused for his absence under the second charge is unbelievable. the only consideration to be in favour of the applicant is under section 39 of the army act. the punishment given under section 39 of the army act is shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such less ..... period from 7.6.1990 to 18.06.1990 to visit his family, but he again overstayed his leave for 20 days. he was charged under section 39(a) of the army act for absenting himself without leave. the summary court martial tried and found him guilty and sentenced to undergo 6 months ri and also the punishment of dismissal ..... dated 08.03.2008 and the impugned order dated 08.11.2008 of the 2nd respondent, resulting the punishment of dismissal from service for an offence under section 39(b) of the army act, are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the application/appeal? 8. the point:- charges 1 and 2 levelled against .....

K Tirupathi Versus the Chief of Army Staff Army Headquarters, Dhpo New ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... the commanding officer, to take revenge on the petitioner, framed the following charges against him: i) army act section 36 (d) leaving his post without orders from his superior officer; ii) army act section 38 (1) deserting the service iii) army act section 52 (a) committing theft in respect of property belonging to the government. 2(c) without giving ..... rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. the said sentence is under challenge before this tribunal. 7(a) the specific charges levelled against the petitioner under army act section 36(d) is that the petitioner on 04.03.2001 between 05.00 and 06.00 hours, when on sentry duty at 5 post, ..... other relevant facts not taken into consideration. merely because the appellant was in the army service, he is not deprived for human or fundamental rights. fairness and reasonableness is the hallmark of article 14 of the constitution of idnia, 1950. imposition of double punishment by court martial without giving reasons is wholly arbitrary. .....

Gautam Sanyal Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... dt 27 mar 78: t.a no. 484 of 2010 gautam sanyal 7 (a) 3005/95/e3 for rs.3680/- (b) 3005/96/e3 for rs.8438/- fifth charge army act section 63 an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at gurdaspur, during sep 83, while performing the duties of ge(p) no.2 gurdaspur improperly placed following supply ..... . 13. now what remains to be considered is the quantum of sentence, so far as charge no. 1 is concerned. though the first charge refers about the offence under army act section 52(f) viz. having caused wrongful loss to the government by placing two supply orders in respect of repairs to 3 ton shaktiman ba no.37405 for rs.9900/- and ..... sentence of imprisonment for one year would commensurate with the gravity of the offence, for which he was held guilty. 14. the conviction of the appellant for the offence under army act section 52(f) specified in charge no.1 is upheld. he is acquitted of rest of the offences under charge nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. the sentence of cashiering .....

Sepoy No.14603518m Cfn (Elect) Roor Singh of Hq 70 Inf Bde Camp Versus ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... made to locate the individual and inform him about such duties. however, they were unable to locate the appellant. 7. with regard to the charge no.4 under section 63 of the army act i.e. visiting the duty bound area, witness no.2 maj ks sahrawat has testified that he saw the appellant coming out of the village and running back to ..... to such plea. it is therefore, to be presumed that the individual had infact made such wilful disobedience of orders. 6. with regard to charge no.3 under section 39(a) of the army act i.e. the individual was missing from the unit lines on 23.10.1997 from approx 1600 to 2100 hours, all the three witnesses i.e. witness no ..... .09.1997 to 09.10.1997. counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant had never disobeyed any lawful command as was purported to have been committed under section 41(i) of the army act. in this instance when he was ordered by his hav maj to report for duty the appellant replied that he had not been issued with the coat parka .....

Union of India Through Its Secretary, and ors. Vs. Rabinder Singh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... conducting of the court of inquiry on 13.10.1986 to collect evidence and to make a report under rule 177 of the army rules, 1954 framed under section 191 of the army act, 1950. on conclusion of the inquiry a disciplinary action was directed against the respondent. (ii) thereafter, the summary of evidence was recorded ..... rival counsel, we may note that the respondent was charged under section 52 (f) of the army act, 1950 and the section was specifically referred in the charges leveled against him. section 52 reads as follows:- 52. offences in respect of property - any person subject to this act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say ..... under rule 23 of the army rules, wherein the respondent duly participated. some 15 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution, and the .....

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Ajaib Singh No. 1256394 Wex-gunner ( ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)117PLR819

..... conducting the summary court-martial. we find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent regarding non-compliance of the provisions of section 130 of the army act.16. admittedly, the delinquent/writ-petitioner ajaib singh (who is respondent before us) has served and suffered the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him ..... without more, vitiates the proceedings. while controverting this averment of the writ petitioner, the appellant/union of india contended that if bare perusal of section 130 of the army act would go to show that it relates to all the trials by general, district or summary general court-martial and it omits the proceedings before ..... it was further contended by the appellants that as per provisions of pension regulation para 123(c)(t) the petitioner after his punishment under section 38(1) of the army act was required to serve minimum period of three years in an exemplary manner after completion of the punishment in order to become eligible for pensionary .....