Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 125 choice between criminal court and court martial Page 9 of about 968 results (2.038 seconds)

Major General A.K. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

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 .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Lt. Col. Rakesh Gautam

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ202; 2008(3)KCCR1530; 2008(5)AIRKarR28(DB)

..... 2001 and it was completed in july 2001. on 25-2-2002 a general court martial was ordered against the writ petitioner under the provisions of the army act, 1950. the proceedings of the general court martial were commended on 13th march, 2002 and were concluded on 1st april, 2002. the petitioner was held guilty ..... 4. though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, the learned single judge considered only the question regarding the bar of trial under section 122 of the army act. even though the petitioner specifically contended in the writ petition that the time gap between the knowledge of the alleged offence and the holding ..... the knowledge of the authority competent to initiate action. therefore the general court martial held against the petitioner was clearly barred by limitation under section 122 of the army act. therefore, the entire general court martial proceedings against the writ petitioner were illegal and unauthorised and the learned single judge was right and justified .....

Ram Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1989(16)DRJ101

..... it has not at all been considered and rather ignored.'(8) the submission of the counsel regarding the objection having been ignored, is completely untenable. section 116 of the army act makes it abundantly clear that in a summary court martial, the commanding officer alone is to constitute the court. there are no other members of that ..... he has also challenged the order passed by the general officer ccommanding-in-chief, western command. (5) the first plea of the petitioner that provisions of section 130 of the army act have not been complied with is based on a judgment of the supreme court in ranjit thakur v. union of india, : 1988crilj158 . during the course ..... fd. at 1500 h on 16 jan 88 while on duty was found intoxicated.'(3) the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing a petition under section 164 of the army act to the general officer commanding- in-chief, western command, chandi mandir. this representation dated the 2nd april, 1988 was dismissed on 17th july, 1988. .....

Ali Jabed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC892

..... is warranted on the merits of the case, a wo or an nco may be reduced to one rank lower than his substantive rank under army act section 20(4).procedure for dismissal/ discharge of undesirable jcos/wos/or4. ar 13 and 17 provide that a jco/wo/or whose dismissal or discharge ..... :---------------------------------------------------------------date of award under section punishment awarded---------------------------------------------------------------9.7.1986 section 39(b) of the army act 28 days ri and 14 days detention in military custody.28.1.1992 section 39(b) of the army act 7 days ri22.6.1992 section 29(b) of the army act 28 days ri1.8.1995 under section 39(b) of 28 ..... days ri and 14 days the army act detention in military custody.---------------------------------------------------------------4. it has also been stated .....

Anil Nanasaheb Pawar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR433

..... any other military hospital for medical treatment.' on the basis of the fact that he had been absent without sufficient cause he was charge-sheeted under section 39(b) of the army act, 1950. the charge was to the effect that ' at misamari while granted annual leave w.e.f. 10th november 1988 to 12th january, 1989 he ..... court in the case of major g.s. sodhi v. union of india, : (1991)2scc371 . it would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce section 71 of the army act in order to appreciate the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. '71. punishments awarded by courts martial : punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences ..... 14th may, 1981 he was punished for 7 days detention under section 39(b) of the army act for overstaying leave without sufficient cause. on 12th november, 1982 he was punished for 28 days imprisonment under section 39(b) of the army act and under section 48(1) of the army act for overstaying leave without sufficient cause and for being found intoxicated .....

Gurman Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1984CriLJ718

..... the parliament to enact laws with regard to naval, military and air force or any other armed forces of the union. the army act, 1950 act 46 of 1950 has been enacted by the parliament. section 21 of the aforesaid act empowers the central government to make rules restricting to such extent and in such manner as is necessary, some of the fundamental rights ..... review of the final opinion once expressed by the court of inquiry in accordance with the provisions of rule 179 sub-rule ((5) of the army rules, 1954 framed under section 191 of the army act, 1950. rule 179(5) expressly provides as follows:-the court may be re-assembled as often as the officer who assembled the court may direct, for ..... penal deduction which is a punishment can be imposed only by court martial or by the officer commanding in a summary procedure as envisaged in sections 80, 83, 84 and 85 of the army act, 1950.8. it has also been submitted that the convening of the court martial for trial of the petitioner is bad as it is in .....

Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1973MP191; (1972)IILLJ611MP

..... general court martial, and confirmed by the general officer command-in-chief, central command, lucknow, punishing the petitioner for an offence under section 41(2) of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter called the act).29. the facts in detail have been stated in the order of my learned brother, and it would not be worthwhile to repeat ..... the discussion aforesaid, i would allow the present petition with costs and would quash the impugned order imposing punishment on the petitioner for violation of section 41(2) of the army act, 1950. as the petitioner did not commit any offence whatsoever, there would be no question of any re-trial. therefore, after quashing the said ..... during the investigation before the court of inquiry could never form the subject-matter of a command much less a lawful command, as envisaged by section 41(2) of the army act, 1950. therefore, with due respect to the learned members constituting the general court-martial, i would stress that as the petitioner's presence or .....

Mulkh Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1794

..... forces. as held by their lordships in ram sarup v. union of india : 1965crilj236 taking away this right is not restricted, to section 21 of the army act, but every provision in the army act which abridges or abrogates any fundamental right of the members of the arnied forces, is covered by article 33 of the constitution, which can ..... simultaneously taken cognizance of the offence to give rise to any conflict of jurisdiction between it and a court martial. respondent no. 4 having plenary powers under section 125 of the army act to have the petitioner tried by a g. c. m. and the criminal court and court martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) rules, 1952 not being ..... under which exemption to supply the aforesaid material was claimed by the central government is violative of articles 21 and 22 of the constitution, even section 164(2) of the army act, which does not envisage a right of personal hearing or hearing through a counsel in a convict is ultra vires the constitution and opposed to the .....

C. Rajan Vs. the Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary to Government an ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... said to have been committed by him? 6(c) before the court martial the charges levelled against the petitioner are under section 39(a) and 48 of the army act. the punishment provided 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 ..... sentenced by the commanding officer, 17 engineer regiment, to 28 days ri on 23rd march 1998 for an offence under army act section 48, and 7 days pay fine on 25th november 1998 for an offence under army act section 54(b) by neglect losing identity card, a property of the government issued to him for his personal use and ..... issued to him for his personnal use. (c) 14 days rigorous imprisonment by commanding officer, 17 engineer regiment on 1st july 1999 for an offence under army act section 39(b) without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him. (d) 07 days rigorous imprisonment by commanding officer, 17 engineer regiment on 7th september 1999 for an .....

M. Chenchu Rami Reddy Vs. General Court Martial of Ex-army Eme Centre ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1994(2)ALT68; 1994(2)ALT(Cri)103

..... imprisonment in this writ petition.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the army act, 1950 was amended by inserting section 169a of army (amendment) act, 1992 and in accordance with the said provision, the period during which the petitioner spent in civil or military custody during investigation, inquiry ..... was rejected by the court martial.4. in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to set out section 169-a of the army act, 1950 which is as follows.'169-a: period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment -when a ..... that the provision which deals with an accused person should be interpeted in favour of the accused.9. for the aforesaid reasons, i hold that section 169-a of the army, act, 1950 applies to persons who are already convicted by the date of the commencement of the amended provision or to be convicted thereafter, equally. w.p .....