Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 166 form of sentence of death Court: chennai Page 1 of about 14 results (0.837 seconds)

S. Sakthivel Vs. Col. Commanding Officer, Artillery Depot Regiment and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... exhibit-1 (surrender certificate). but, once the appellant/accused had voluntarily surrendered before the respondents, they ought to have proceeded against him as per section 39 of the army act 1950, which specifically deals with absence without leave of personnel. there is no material placed before this tribunal to show that after the appellant/accused had ..... centre, nasik road camp and was taken on strength as an individual, pending disciplinary inquiry. p.w.1 would further add that since action as per army act section 142(5) had already been carried out earlier, the documents as initiated on 28th july 2008 were duly cancelled vide artillery centre, nasik road letter no. ..... the respondents have chosen to resort to court martial proceedings after framing a charge against the appellant/accused under section 38(1) of the army act instead of proceeding against him under section 39(b) of the army act even after he voluntarily surrendered under exhibit-1. p.w.4 in his evidence has also spoken to .....

In Re: A.A. Paul

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1974CriLJ375

..... if he continued to be so subject. the very words relied on by the learned counsel clearly indicate that the accused contemplated under that section is really not subject to the army act, but the procedure for the trial of such person should be the same as in the case of a person who is still subject ..... person is subject to military, naval or air force law, the abovesaid rules would be attracted. section 2 of the army act mentions persons who are subject to the said act. sub-section (2) of that section says that every person subject to the said act shall remain so subject until duly retired, discharged, released, removed, dismissed or cashiered from the service ..... accused (revision petitioner) contends that in spite of the accused having retired from army service, he must be deemed to be subject to the army act by virtue of section 123 of the army act and so much so. the rules made by the central government under section 549 of the code of criminal procedure would be attracted.3. there can .....

Rudra Harish Vs. Union of India Represented by Chief of Army Staff and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... by commanding officer(a)osl-103 days28 days riaa sec 39(b)army act sec 80(b)osl-10 days07 days ri and 14 days pay fineaa sec 39(b)army act sec 80(c)osl-15 days07 days riaa sec 39(b)army act sec 80(d)osl-05 days07 days ri and 14 days pay fineaa sec 39(a)army act sec 80 the petitioner was encouraged at all times ..... 28th december 1988. his reply to the show cause notice was examined. in this reply, the petitioner mentioned that he was no longer interested in serving in the army. commander 102, infantry brigade approved his discharge and he was discharged on 19th march 2012. the discharge of the petitioner is in consonance with the regulations and rules ..... as enunciated in army law and therefore, the application be dismissed being devoid of merit. 4. heard both sides and examined documents. 5. the only point that needs to be determined .....

A. Chandra Babu Naidu Vs. the General Officer Commanding-in-chief

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... 7 days pay fine imposed by the competent authority, then he would have applied for leave declining to accept any further duty like sentry duty. under section 64(c) of army act, if a personnel attempts to commit suicide due to mental illness or stress and strain, he will not be relieved off from the punishment. the defence ..... take an extreme step of committing the offence of attempting to commit suicide. but, in our considered view, the reason for committing an offence under section 64(c) of the army act ie., attempting to commit suicide is not a point to be considered to set aside the impugned order. the only valuable ground of defence the ..... on behalf of the applicant/appellant would focus the attention of this tribunal contending that the punishment awarded to the applicant/appellant for an offence under section 64(c) of the army act is disproportionate and without considering the mental status of the accused, the extreme penalty has been awarded to the applicant/appellant and the same is .....

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. .....

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 .....

Lt Col (Ts) Sasanka Shekhar SwaIn Vs. Union of India, Through the Secr ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... effect and thereafter refused to return to the court room, thereby causing interruption in the proceedings of the said court martial. (viii) the eighth charge is, under army act section 39(a), absenting himself without leave in that he, at field, absented himself without leave from 22nd november 1999 to 7th december 1999. 3. after hearing ..... of the court without permission of the presiding officer, thereby causing interruption in the proceedings of the said court martial. (vii) the seventh charge is, under army act section 59(e), contempt of court martial by causing an interruption in the proceedings of such court in that he, at secundrabad, on 28th october 1999, while being ..... mr-4059x lt col krm rao, classified specialist (medicine and cardiology) at the aforesaid hospital, as he well knew. (ii) the second charge is, under army act section 41(2), disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in that he, at secunderabad, on 2nd july 1999, having been ordered by ic-28423k brig ss .....

ic 28598 Lt Col N.Ganganna Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary an ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... journey from shahdol to pipariya and back, well knowing the said information to be false . 3(c) charge no.4 against the applicant is under army act section 63 an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline, i.e., at shahdol, on 14th march 1992, when officer commanding 7 madhya pradesh (independent) company, national ..... the point for determination in this application/appeal against the gcm is whether the charges levelled against the accused under army act section 52(b) and 52(f) (two counts) and the charge under army act section 63 have been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt to sustain the conviction and punishment of dismissal awarded ..... corps, shahdol, dishonestly misappropriated a sum of rs.6,975/-, the property belonging to the government . 3(a) charge no.2 against the applicant is under army act section 52(f), that is to say at shahdol, on 2nd november 1991, while being officer commanding, 7 madhya pradesh (independent) company, national cadet corps, with .....

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 .....

In Re: Major F.K. Mistry

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ44

..... statements in them completely. the question is whether the facts mentioned in them are sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that the provisions of section 69 of the indian army act, have been complied with. mr. subbiah, the special police inspector, states that after he completed the investigation conducted under the ordinary provisions of ..... of language be termed either the competent military authority or the commanding officer of the accused person. even if the prescribed military authority under section 69 of the army act had come to the decision that the proceeding should be instituted in an ordinary criminal court, still, in my judgment, according to the true ..... the commanding officer of the accused person. the learned advocate-general contended that when once the prescribed military authority has come to this decision under section 69 of the army act, the observance of the rule by the magistrate, viz., the issuing of a notice, is not necessary, and the insistence upon the following .....