Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 69 civil offences Court: allahabad Page 3 of about 1,494 results (0.129 seconds)

Daya Shankar Tiwari Vs. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2142; (2002)2UPLBEC1634

..... cases. this calls for examination of the relevant provisions of the army act and rules to find out whether petitioner could have been declared as a deserter, and dismissed from army under section 20(3) of the army act. sections 105 and 106 of the army act, 1950, deal with capture of deserters and inquiry into absence without leave. sections 105 and 106 are quoted as below :'105. capture of deserters ..... such, he was declared deserter with effect from 2.5.1996. a court of inquiry was heldunder section 106 of army act, 1950 and being a peace deserter, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 21.10.1999 in terms of army act section 20(3) and army headquarters letter dated 11.3.1980 as amended vide letter dated 4.8.1987. since the petitioner was .....

Lnk Dhan Bahadur Roka Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1080

..... only possible conclusion regarding the said exception contained in clause (a) of sub-para (b) is that a gorkha personnel of nepalese domicile subject to army act enjoys exemption from prior sanction of the government for contracting plural marriage.13. the above view gets further support from the language of the amended provisions ..... be looked into as contained in sub-para (b).10. clause (a) of said sub-para (b) provides that no person subject to the army act except gorkha personnel of nepalese domicile whose personal law permits plural marriage and whose previous marriage is subsisting, will marry again without prior sanction of the government ..... ) (a) to (h) below apply to such persons only.(b) plural marriage by persons in whose case it is permissible :(a) no person subject to the army act, except gorkha personnel of nepalese domicile, whose personal law permits plural marriage and whose previous marriage is subsisting, will many again without prior sanction of the government.*** *** .....

Hadi HusaIn and ors. Vs. Nasir UddIn Haider and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1926All623; 97Ind.Cas.108

..... to protect that court by punishing those who interfere with the due administration of justice in that court.37. and at page 753 the learned judge remarked that in the army act he could findno provision either express or implied which takes away the right of a party to proceedings before a court martial who is aggrieved by a contempt of that ..... even a king's court but the company's court; whereas the sadar diwani adalat was a court of record and was authorized by statute (21 geo. iii.c 70. section 21). it is on this ground that i can easily distinguish the case of the government of bengal v. moti lal ghosh air 1914 cal 69. in that case the ..... what her majesty could by letters patent lawfully do under the indian high courts act of 1861. section 16 of the act confers all the powers authorized by the act, and subject to the letters patent, makes all the provisions of the act, as far as circumstances may permit, applicable. and section 9 confers on a high court powers vested in any of the courts ' .....

Manju Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(1)ESC224; [2005(104)FLR773]; (2005)1UPLBEC435

..... chief of the army staff has, after taking into consideration the other factors come-to the conclusion that the retention of that ..... was tried by the court-marshal but, upon the confirmation, as provided in the army act and rules, the confirming authority came to the conclusion that there was some technical flaw, therefore, the court-marshal proceeding was dropped in view of section 121 of the army act, which clearly goes to show that second trial is not permissible, therefore, in view of the fact the .....

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

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2752

..... that parliament may by law restrict the applicability of the right conferred under that chapter to the members of armed forces and other specified organizations. parliament has enacted section 21 in the army act, 1950, which authorised the central government to restrict to such extent and in such manner rights of a person subject to the ..... discharging the function of a havaldar (opr) in 129 ad regiment when he was charge-sheeted for two offences under section 40(c) of the army act, 1950. he was tried by a summary court martial and was awarded the following punishment :(a) to be reduced to the ranks ;(b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three ..... act. the central government under its rule making power under section 191 of the act has framed the army rules of 1954 and rule 129 is referable to section 21. the validity of a law made under article 33 .....

Ex. No. 1387-5234-m Sepoy/D.B./M.T., Chabi Nath Rai Vs. Union of India ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC236

..... no. 1 on a representation being made by the appellant under section 164 of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. the facts of the case are that the appellant was charged of murder of sipoy driver parvin kumar under section 69 of the army act read with 302 of indian penal code by a general court martial ..... he was trans ferred from civil jail jammu to naini central jail, allahabad. he made representation through his counsel from allahabad under section 164(2) of the army act. the chief of the army staff, respondent no 2 rejected the representation vide order dated 10th june, 1994 and the decision was communicated to the counsel for ..... confirming authority the appellant was already in jail. it is only after the confirmation of the sentence the appellant had preferred an appeal/representation under section 164(2) of the army act. the appellant was sentenced for life imprisonment and was dismissed from service. the confirmation of the sentence was also made at jammu. the mere .....

Ranjit Singh Chaurasia Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1976All405

..... and dismissed the writ petition. against the judgment of the learned single judge, this appeal has been filed.2. sections 34 to 68 of the army act, 1950, set out the offences punishable under this act and the punishments that may be inflicted on conviction for these offences. the appellant was tried for an offence under ..... section 40(c) for using insubordinate language to his superior officer. the maximum punishment provided for this offence under section 40 is five years. section 71 of the act ..... the court-martial sentenced him to three months' imprisonment as well as dismissal from service the appellant availed of the remedies available to him under the army act, 1950, but failed to get any redress. he thereupon filed a writ petition in this court. the only point he urged before the learned single judge .....

Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2001)3UPLBEC2253

..... , j.1. the petitioner while borne in the books of 13 garhwal rifles as a rifleman holding the rank of acting lance nayak was chargesheeted vide charge-sheet dated 18.6.1993 under section 52 of the army act, 1950 for having committed theft in respect of carbine, machinegun 9 m.m. regd. no. zz-1945, the property of ..... courts martial arc of four kinds : (a) general courts martial; (b) district courts martial; (c) summary general courts martial; and (d) summary courts martial (section 108 of the army act, 1950). as visualized by section 116 of the act the summary court martial may be held by the commanding officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular ..... a district court martial namely, central government or chief of the army staffer any officer authorised by the chief of the army staff who is competent to convene a general court martial and a district court martial, as provided by section 115 of the army act, 1950. summary court martial in the instant was not convened by an .....

Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and O ...

Court : Allahabad

..... court-martial. section 475 of the code of criminal procedure is extracted herebelow:-475. delivery to commanding officers of persons liable to be tried by court- martial. (1) the central government may make rules consistent with this code and the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ), the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957 ), and the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950 ), and ..... court- martial for trial or to be examined touching any matter pending before the court- martial. 4. learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is army act, 1950 as well as rules framed thereunder which empowers the tribunal for trial of such cases, therefore, the transfer of the case cannot be denied. in the case ..... abundantly clear from the use of separate words.5. the learned magistrate does not dispute the authority of the court under the army act to try with the case.6. the provisions of section 475 of the code of criminal procedure are itself clear that when the person who is subject to military, naval or air .....

Ex. Sep./M.T. Ram Bahadur Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3781

..... as by this court, held that mere communicating the decision rendered by the authority on a representation under section 164(2) of the army act would not confer jurisdiction and the high court at allahabad in such circumstances could not have any jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under article 226 ..... were confirmed at jammu and the same was also communicated to him at jammu. while undergoing life imprisonment at allahabad, he made a representation under section 164(2) of the army act, the decision upon which was also communicated to him at allahabad. the division bench relying upon various decisions rendered by the apex court as well ..... at bangalore, the statutory complaint that he preferred before the goc-in-c, southern command was also decided by the said authority at pune. the chief of army staff did not dwell and adjudicate upon the said complaint of the petitioner. this court, therefore, is of the considered view that no part of cause of .....