Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 72 alternative punishments awardable by court martial Page 7 of about 499 results (0.174 seconds)

Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1969SC414; 1969CriLJ663; [1969]2SCR177

..... the civil police. in order to test whether this argument is valid it is necessary to scrutinize the provisions of the army act in some detail. section 2 of the army act, 1950 (act 46 of 1950), hereinafter called the 'army act', describes the different categories of army personnel who are subject to the army act. section 3(ii) defines a 'civil offence' to mean 'an offence which is triable by a criminal court ..... '; section 3(vii) defines a 'court-martial' to mean 'a court-martial held under this act'; section 3(viii) defines 'criminal court' to mean 'a .....

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 .....

Sepoy/Chef (U) Raj Kumar Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary, ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Lucknow

..... a court order to the same effect is passed, it should be given due consideration while dealing with the question of alteration in allowance. (b) the existing note 5 to army act section 120 be deleted. 2. the above amendments shall come into effect from the date of issue of these orders. yours faithfully, sd/- (s.i. barodia) desk officer ..... s case the ground upon which the trial was held to be vitiated by the allahabad high court was that there was a breach of section 120 sub section 2 of the army act and that there was an absence of circumstances indicating the existence of any grave reason or immediate action justifying the holding of a summary court martial ..... on every date of over stayal and the trial was therefore not barred by limitation. moreover, an order has been passed by the reviewing authority under section 163 of the army act substituting the finding of the court martial and confining the punishment given to the petitioner would be in respect of the over stayal for three years .....

Union of India and ors Vs. Major S.P. Sharma and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... cashiered. against 13 officers, disciplinary actions were initiated. however, a decision was taken not to try them and an administrative order under section 18 of the army act, 1950 (in short the army act ) was passed terminating their services.3. the present appeals arise out of the order passed way back in 1980 terminating the services ..... 56. from a reading of the files one could see that the proposal had come from the army headquarters directorate of military intelligence for termination of services of certain officers under section 18 of the army act, 1950 and that was accepted by the concerned ministry. the circumstances under which the directorate military intelligence ..... were brought invoking the doctrine of pleasure as enshrined under article 310 of the constitution of india, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the constitution ) coupled with the powers to be exercised under section 18 of the army act. initially, the orders of dismissal were passed on 11.1.1980, which were assailed in .....

Sanjay Giri Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of Defence, New De ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Lucknow

..... 13(3) iii (v) is passed and it is sufficient compliance of the rules that a show cause notice is given. section 22 of the army act provides that any person subject to the act may be retired, released or discharged in the manner as may be prescribed. an order of discharge under rule 13(3) iii (v) is not a punishment ..... court should avoid an interpretation which makes a statutory provision redundant. the rules under the army act prescribe the manner in which the punishment under section 80 is to be awarded. while all personnel subject to the army act can be tried by courts martial, the power under section 80 can be exercised only in respect of soldiers other than officers jco s and ..... was awarded more than four red ink entries based on the punishment orders dated 09.07.2001 u/s 48 of the army act wherein the petitioner was awarded 14 days imprisonment, order dated 08.03.2002 under section 39 (a) of the army act wherein he was awarded 14 days imprisonment, order dated 01.07.2002 u/s 63 of the .....

Major Anurag Pathak Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR228

..... and in routine course it was prepared by his subordinates and he signed the same when it was placed before him.section 57(a) of the army act, 1950 reads as under:57. falsifying official documents and false declaration-any person subject to this act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say(a) in any report, return, list, certificate ..... him and charges were framed on 18/7/1998 for the offences under sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the army act, 1950. the general court martial convicted the petitioner for the first and the fifth charge i.e. under sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the army act, 1950 on 11/8/1998 and on the same day after hearing, he was ..... or favours etc. we, therefore, uphold the findings of the court martial and as confirmed by the general officer commanding-in-chief that the charge under section 57(a) of the army act was duly proved against the petitioner.6. the proceedings of gcm cannot be equated with the proceedings of the domestic tribunal. the law of evidence is not .....

Union of India and anr. Vs. P.D. Yadav

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)30; [2001(91)FLR961]; JT2001(8)SC617; 2001LabIC4014; 2001(7)SCALE270; (2002)1SCC405; 2001(4)SCT1002(SC); 2002(1)SLJ299(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC118

..... or removing from service. only further action is taken under regulation 16(a) in relation to forfeiture of pension. thus, punishing a person under section 71 of the army act and making order under regulation 16(a) are entirely different. hence, there is no question of applying principle of double jeopardy to the present ..... a contention, though feebly, was advanced on behalf of some of the respondents that forfeiture of pension in addition to the punishment imposed under section 71 of the army act amounted to double jeopardy. in our view, this contention has no force. there is no question of prosecuting and punishing a person twice ..... financial powers of mg asc, hq southern command. 10. we notice the relevant provisions of the acts and regulations:-the army act 1950 '71. punishments awardable by courts-martial.- punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons subject to this act and convicted by courts-martial, according to the scale following, that is to say,- (a) .....

Lt. Col. S.K. Kashyap and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1971SC1120; 1971CriLJ832; (1971)2SCC126; [1971]3SCR881; 1971(4)WLN23

..... on 17 january, 1967 the state of rajasthan made an application before the special judge that under section 122 of the army act, 1950 a period of three years was provided after which no court martial proceedings could be commenced against the army officers and the period of limitation was to be computed from the date of such offence. the ..... commanding gave notice that the four officers meaning thereby the appellants belonged to his unit and that the appellants would be tried by court martial under the army act, 1950 for the offences alleged to have been committed by them as set out in the notice of the special judge and that the court of the special ..... 3 could not be invoked where the police merely started investigation. in some datt datta's case (supra) this court said about sections 125 and 126 of the army act 'these two sections of the army act provide a satisfactory machinery to v resolve the conflict of jurisdiction having regard to the exigencies of the situation in particular case.' in .....

Harikishan Vs. Union of India, Service Through the Secretary Deptt. of ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata

..... set aside. however, goc, eastern command, rejected such representation. 3. on 29.8.2000 the petitioner filed an application under section 164 and 165 of the army act 1950 before the chief of the army staff, new delhi. in the said application the petitioner categorically mentioned that the presiding officer of the summary court martial proceeding did ..... justice. this contention of the learned advocate for the accused / applicant is thus not accepted. 7. the accused has claimed that the provision of section 131 of the army act regarding the taking of oath or affirmation in the prescribed manner was not followed. according to the learned advocate for the applicant this provision of taking ..... action against the petitioner for his alleged absence of 3 hrs. 30 minutes. in this respect the petitioner has pointed out to the provision of section 80 of the army act. 4. regarding the factual aspects, the petitioner has claimed that in fact he was not absent as alleged. he went to the shopping centre .....

J.K. Ojha Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT52; 2002(2)MPLJ78

..... his unit well knowing that the concession voucher book (iaft-1720a) bearing machine number from 91l 812100 had been lost by him.third charge : army act, section 63 : an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.in that he,at field, on 27 march, 2000, when examined as a witness at summary of evidence ..... deficient of concession voucher book (iaft-1720a) containing one hundred forms bearing machine number 91l-812100, the property of the government entrusted to him.second charge: army act, section 57(d): where it was his officialduty to make a declaration respecting a matter knowingly making a false declaration.in that he,at chandigarh, on 25th ..... second charge sheet which has been issued to the petitioner contains the first charge under section 54(b) of army act. the second charge is under section 57(d) of army act and third charge relates to the violation of section 63 of the army act. the charges which are levelled against the petitioner in the undergoing disciplinary enquiry are .....