Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 173 communication of certain orders to prison officers Court: jammu and kashmir Page 1 of about 2 results (0.070 seconds)

Mahabir Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1977CriLJ1534

..... shall be deemed to have been done or taken ... ... ... ... the army act, 1950, as amended by this act, as if this act had come into force on ..... also not been framed. the amendment act was preceded by the air force and army laws (amendment) ordinance and the said ordinance came into force on 25-1-1975. section 4(1) of the amendment act repealed the ordinance but section 4(2) provided thatnotwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the air force act, 1950 or the army act, 1950 as amended by the said ordinance .....

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 .....

Sewa Ram Nagial Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1788

..... the said offence, and nor could the petitioner be said to have committed a civil offence as meant by section 69 of the army act.5. section 69 of the army act provides that any person who is subject to the army act and who is charged with an offence, shall be tried by a court martial. this jurisdiction is vested in ..... at raj rifles centre, where he was immediately taken into custody. later on, he was according to him, charged under section 63 of the army act and section 3(i)(c) of the official secrets act read with section 69 of the army act, and was punished by the g. 0. c, northern command, respondent no. 3 herein, and demoted to the ..... challenges an order of a general court martial, for short g. c. m., convicting him under section 63 of the army act and section 3(i)(c) of the indian official secrets act, 1923, for short, official secrets act, read with section 69 of the army act, and cashiering him and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. briefly stated, the facts leading .....

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2005(1)JKJ353

..... sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the general court martial was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.5. statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 164 of the army act came to be rejected vide order dated 9-6-1997. petitioner was lodged in district jail, udhampur at the time of filing of this petition.6. ..... and sentence is made on the following grounds: --(a) the general court martial has been ordered by the general officer commanding, who was not empowered under section 109 of the army act. it is alleged that no convening order has been passed.(b) there is in-ordinate delay in trial of the petitioner. the convening and holding of ..... the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. i will take up the grounds of challenge for consideration in seriatim.9. ground no. 1.section 109 of the army act deals with the convening of general court martial and reads as under: --'109. power to convene a general court-martial-a general court-martial may be .....

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 .....

Dev Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Ministry of Defence and 3 ors ...

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ484

..... vide ai 317/52. you were failed to report for reservist training during 1961 when called for. as such you were declared deserter and dismissed from service under army act sec 30(3) wef 11 nov 64 i.e. after 3 years from the date of desertion.3. in view of the above, you are not entitled for ..... being heard and made the charges against him and whether any specific order was passed with regard to forfeiture of the pensionary benefits, as required under section 71 of the army act? the reply further does not disclose as to whether summary court martial, after considering the facts, found the petitioner guilty and awarded the punishment of ..... years reserve service by the petitioner, entitles the petitioner for the grant of pension. the order declaring the petitioner deserter and dismissing him from service under section 20(3) of the army act, has been made without giving him any hearing and is, therefore, unsustainable in law being violative of principles of natural justice, when the petitioner .....

State Vs. Ram Lakhan

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1971CriLJ470

..... (1st edition) samvat. 1970, do not appear to be consistent with the army act, 1950 (act no. xlvi of 1950) and ceased in my opinion to be operative in the state with the passing of the act. this is also because of the fact that sections 41 and 42 of the jammu and kashmir army act no. xiv of 1939 do not appear to be pari materia with sees ..... . 69 and 70 of the army act no. xlvi of 1950. that apart the offences under ranbir penal code or offences under any other penal statute enacted by the state legislature not being civil offences as conceived by the act i. e. army act, 1950 .....

Capt. Parveen Rawat and ors. Vs. State of J and K and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... herein, were found to be involved in the scam and consequently g.o.c. 14 corps directed initiation , of action under army act 1950 against them for various acts of omission and commission punishable under army act. pursuant to his directions petitioners were removed from their respective posts on which they were posted and were attached to different units ..... served upon petitioner nos. 3&4. petitioner no. 3 has been charged for commission of offence under section 52f and 45 of army act whereas petitioner no. 4 for commission of offence under section 69 of the said act. summary of evidence is being collected and recorded. it is admitted case of the petitioners that they have ..... the case before the supreme court the appellants who had been convicted by court-martial for offences under the army act and were undergoing imprisonment had applied for benefit of the provision of set off contained in section 428 of central cr.p.c. the high court of punjab and haryana had rejected their claims. their .....

Union of India and Others Vs. Daleep Kumar

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... -writ petitioner cannot be treated as a deserter. as rightly held by the learned writ court, his case was to be dealt with by following the procedure prescribed under section 106 of the army act, 1950. the said provision has not been complied with. the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent-writ petitioner was not sustainable in law and has been rightly set ..... -writ petitioner was false and incorrect. 9. the respondent-writ petitioner has been treated as deserter from the day first and dealt with accordingly by the competent authority. 10. section 38 of the army act 1950 refers to the deserter, while section 39 refers to those persons, who remain absent from the duties. if the person is declared to be a deserter, then provisions of .....

Lt. Col. J.S. Sekhon Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2002CriLJ783

..... sehgal as witnesses. the general court martial after hearing the argument and appreciating the evidence returned a finding, rejecting the plea in bar of trial under section 122 of the army act and ruled that the trial is within limitation. the question arises whether these findings can be interfered in exercise of power of judicial review. this question ..... of india v. major a. hussain', (1998) 1 scc 537 : (air 1998 sc 577). so the conclusion is that the plea in bar under section 122 of the army act having been raised before the general court martial which the court martial rejected after appreciating the evidence, this court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot re- ..... 116 of the general court-martial proceedings).15. in view of the admitted facts that no objection to any officer being member of the court was raised under section 130 of the army act, the judgment in 'ranjit thakur v. union of india,' air 1987 sc 2386 : (1988 cri lj 158) has no application. consequently, the question .....