Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 173 communication of certain orders to prison officers Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 97 results (0.427 seconds)

Union of India and ors. Vs. Subedar Ram Narain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC3225; JT1998(6)SC383; 1998LabIC3530; (1999)ILLJ77SC; 1998(5)SCALE278; (1998)8SCC52; [1998]Supp1SCR616

..... 10. the terms of regulation 16(a) are clearly different from regulation 113(a). according to regulation 16(a) when an officer, as defined in section 3(xviii) of the army act, 1950, is cashiered or dismissed or removed from service then the president has the discretion of either forfeiting his pension or ordering that he be granted pension ..... in close arrest with effect from 17.11.1988 and was then court-martialed under the provisions of the army act. he was charged under section 40(a), using criminal force to his superior officer, and section 48 of the army act, 1950 for being in a state of intoxication while on duty.3. the general court martial found the respondent guilty ..... and thereupon he was dismissed from service on 01.08.1989. he filed an appeal to the chief of the army staff against the decision of the general .....

Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assnandanr Vs. Union of India and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... , 2012 in w.p. (c) no.445 of 2012 of the number of militants. the census of 2011 suggests a population of over 27 lakhs in manipur. [7]. section 3(x) of the army act, 1950: enemy includes all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters, pirates and any person in arms against whom it is the duty of any person subject to military law ..... reaffirm the submissions made on affidavit. however, it is pointed out that a militant or terrorist or insurgent, is an enemy within the aforesaid definition [section 3(x) of the army act, 1950]. and it is the bounden duty of all army personnel to act against a militant or a terrorist or an insurgent, while he is deployed in a disturbed area under afspa. in case .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. V.N. Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... question whether the proceedings were time barred. it was argued that the order dated october 30, 1996, taking the respondent into close custody under section 123 of the army act, 1950, was passed because the respondent was charged for the offence of procedural lapses in local purchase of hygiene and chemicals during his tenure as ..... brigade under whom the respondent was working at the relevant time. the commanding officer, vide order dated october 30, 1996 invoked the provisions of section 123 of the army act 1950, and took the respondent into close custody as superannuation of the respondent was due on october 31, 1996 and it was apprehended that the respondent ..... well as the sentence imposed upon the respondent after holding that gcm proceedings were initiated after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by section 122(1)(b) of the army act, 1950, which has given rise to the instant appeal.3. this court has heard ms. indira jaisingh, the learned additional solicitor general for .....

Union of India and Others Vs. Sadha Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1999SC3833; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)815; 2000CriLJ15; 1999(3)Crimes263(SC); JT1999(8)SC337; 1999(6)SCALE594; (1999)8SCC375; [1999]Supp4SCR28

..... by the respondent.3. respondent was awarded life imprisonment and dismissed from service by the general court martial after being tried for the of fence under section 302 i.p.c. and under section 69 of the army act, 1950. he preferred a writ petition in the high court for his immediate release from the imprisonment on the ground that he has undergone imprisonment exceeding ..... ' is near allied and 'thin partition do their bounds divide' the two are different, section 433a escapes the exclusion of section 5.7. in the present case, respondent was convicted under section 69 of the army act, 1950 for the of fence of murder. it is true that army act is a special act inter alia providing for investigation, trial and punishment for the of fences mentioned therein by .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Ex-gnr Ajeet 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 .....

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1762; 1961CriLJ828; [1962]2SCR195

..... and that they should have been tried only by a court martial under the army act. 18. the argument of learned counsel for the appellant may be briefly stated thus : the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950) created new offences. section 52 of the said act created offences with which accused in the present case were charged, and provided a ..... question is whether he can make an investigation in regard to the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused in the present case. section 5a of the prevention of corruption act, 1950, on which reliance is placed reads : 'notwithstanding anything, contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1898, no police officer below the rank ..... given to the officer referred to in s. 125 of the act. 19. to appreciate the said argument it is necessary to scrutinize the provisions of the army act in some detail. section 2 describes the different categories of army personnel who are subject to the army act. section 3(ii) defines 'civil offence' to mean 'an offence which .....

Sep. Satgur Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... 1 aft13)4) 5) (d) u/s 39(b) of army act (e) u/s 63 of army act (f) u/s 39(b) of army act (g) u/s 63 of army act 07 days ri on 02.11.2000 02 days ri on 15.11.2000 05 days ri on ..... year 2004. the details of his punishments seven times are as under: (a) u/s 39(a) of army act (b) u/s 51 of army act (c) u/s 39(a) of army act 21 days ri on 02.09.1995 28 days ri on 07.09.1995 21 days ri on 04.08.1998 ..... family circumstance. thus, he has been given adequate opportunity to put his defence. therefore, the parameters laid down in para 5(a) of the army instructions dated december 28, 1988 stand satisfied. in reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from ..... , therefore, he be discharged from service. learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this court in veerendra kumar dubey v. chief of army staff & ors.2 wherein, it has been held that the red ink entries by itself would not be sufficient to discharge any person, but .....

Madan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2002)10SCC185

..... has the jurisdiction to try a person who commits an offence has to be adjudged from the provisions of the army act itself and not with reference to the criminal procedure code. a bare reading of section 70 of the army act makes it crystal clear that a person who commits an offence of murder against a person not subject to military, ..... that the court martial had no jurisdiction to try inasmuch as the appellant was charged with the offence of attempting to commit rape and section 70 of the army act excludes the same from the purview of the court martial. the high court in the impugned judgment did consider the aforesaid question and interpreting ..... proceeding of court martial under the provisions of the army act, 1950 whereunder he has been found guilty and has been sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and has also been dismissed from service. the appellant after exhausting the remedies available to him under the provisions of the army act moved the high court under article 226 of the .....

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 .....

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 .....