Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(1)JKJ353
Permod Kohli, J.1. Conviction and award of sentence by the General Court Martial and its confirmation whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and imprisoned for 10 years rigorous imprisonment is sought to be challenged through the present writ petition.2. Factual background as averred in the writ petition leading to the filing of the present petition is being noticed.3. Petitioner was appointed as Sepoy on on 9-10-1978, he came to be promoted as Lance Naik in 1981 and Naik on 15-8-1982, He earned further promotion as Havaldar in August, 1988. In the year 1992 he was posted at Asansole where an FIR came to be registered against him under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was accused of causing injury to one Master Mohinder Pal Singh a Civilian with intent to murder him. On being handed over to the Army Authorities he was charged for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and a charge-sheet in terms of Section 69 of the Indian Army Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1039
..... only been asked to face 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 himself as trial by a general court ..... basis of the charge-sheet dated 23/26.5.2008, as the proceedings are already concluded and only confirmation of the court martial proceedings under section 153 of the army act remains, the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy under section 164(1) and 164(2) of-the army act and without exhausting alternative efficacious remedy, the present writ petition is premature and the same deserves to be dismissed.34. it is also contended on behalf of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ202; 2008(3)KCCR1530; 2008(5)AIRKarR28(DB)
..... 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 and was ordered to be dismissed from service. when the matter was placed before the competent authority for confirmation, the sentence of dismissal was modified as forfeiture of 12 years past service for the purpose of pension and severe reprimand. even though the petitioner had raised a contention before the general court martial that the trial was barred by limitation under section 122 of the army act ..... contention of the petitioner that the trial was barred by limitation was totally frivolous and baseless and that the trial was not barred by limitation. after referring to the relevant facts and the provisions contained in section 122 of the army act, the learned single judge held that the trial was barred by limitation and accordingly annexure-a and al were quashed.5. having heard the learned assistant solicitor general .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1989(16)DRJ101
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition, the petitioner Ram Nath who was at the relevant time a Lans Naik in the Indian Army, challenges his conviction by a Summary Court Martial held on 2nd March, 1988. By the order of the same date, the petitioner was sentenced as follows : '(A)To suffer rigorous imprisonment for twelve months. I direct that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment shall be carried out by confinement in Civil Jail. The accused is recommended Division C or Iii while undergoing sentence in civil prison. If there are only two divisions of prisoners, the accused is recommended Division B or II. (b) To be dismissed from service.'(2) The Summary Court Martial was held by the Commanding Officer of the petitioner. Col. M.C.Sebastinl. The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 40(a) and 48 of the Army Act. The Charge Sheet dated the 25th February, 1988 reads as follows : 'THE accused No. 14530746K Skp (L/NK) DVR(MT) Ram Nath, 6006 Indep Armed Wksp, is charged with : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC892
Shishir Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Order of discharge dated 16.9.1995 under Rule 13 (III) (v) of the Army Rules.2. The fact arising out of the present writ petition is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as Sipahi on 22.6.1984 and after completion of 11 years, two months and two days, has been discharged from service on 16.9.1995. The petitioner's case is that petitioner has got a clean service record and has participated in the operation of Sri Lanka and he is a disciplined soldier and, therefore, the Order of discharge under the aforesaid Rule is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was given only five days leave to attend his seriously ill wife from Pathankot to Fatehpur which was insufficient and a telegram was sent by the petitioner for its extension and no reply was given by the authorities and, as such, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR433
..... did this mistake of not reporting to military hospital, poona, bombay or 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 failed to rejoin the unit on expiry of the said leave till voluntarily ..... earlier for the same misconduct i.e. being absent without authorised leave. on 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 when on duty. it is further the case of the respondents that having been dismissed from service, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP191; (1972)IILLJ611MP
..... 28. this is a petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the 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 them. the first question that deserves to be considered is as to the jurisdiction of ..... subordinate to the high court. in the present case the circumstances are such that i am of opinion that this court ought to exercise its prerogative powers in order to quash an order which is clearly based on a misapprehension of the scope of section 41 of the army act, 1950, on the part of the military authorities. if interference were not to be made in the present petition, that misappre hension might continue and such orders might come to be passed, which would be illegal and without jurisdiction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1984CriLJ718
..... 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 of members of the army, article 33 of the constitution of india empowers the parliament to enact laws imposing restriction on the fundamental rights ..... 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 violation of the provisions of section 121 of the army act which expressly bars or prohibits a second trial of a person subject to this act who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence either by a court martial or by a criminal court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1794
I.K. Kotwal, J. 1. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order of a General Court Martial, for short G. C. M, convicting him under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for short Official Secrets Act, read with Section 69 of the Army Act and sentencing him to eight years' rigorous imprisonment besides dismissal from service.2. Briefly put, the petitioner's case is that on 9-12-1977 he was placed under arrest by the Commanding Officer, 57 Field Regiment. While in military custody, he was tortured by Maj. S.S. Jolly, Maj Malhotra and a few other army and staff officers of the Commanding Officer, 6th Battalion of the Jat Regiment, respondent No. 5 herein, and forced to sign confessional statements and other blank papers. Summary of evidence was recorded at his back and he was not given any opportunity to either cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, or to examine his own witnesses in defence. This was contrary to Rules 22, 23 and 180 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A dismissed Sepoy from the Army has challenged the order of Court Martial by way of filing W.P.No.17429 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner reads as follows:- The petitioner has enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and he had served at Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir State in 201 Engineer Regiment. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Ranji in Bihar State. During his service, he was charged under Sections 39(f), 48 and 39(a) of the Army Act, for having found in a place prohibited by local order without a pass or written leave, and found under intoxication and absenting without leave. 2(a) The applicant has given his remarks for the said charges as f...
Tag this Judgment!