Indian Military Cases in Supreme Court 1960- Contd 2

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
16	EX-HAVILDAR RATAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	Coram: SHARMA, L.M. (J)	19/11/1991	Army Act, 1950.' Section 3(x), 34(a)(h), 36 and 120. Summary Court Martial--Jurisdiction of---Havildar en- gaged in armed action against militants---Charge of running away in a cowardly manner and leaving the post without permission of	The appellant, a Havildar, was charge-sheeted on the ground that during an armed action against a group of mili- tants when the militants opened fire he ran away in a cow- ardly manner and left his post without permission of his superio	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
17	EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA	Coram: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)	30/03/1994	Constitution of India 1950-Article 226-Laches-Order rejecting post-confirmation petition challenged ten years later-Held, petition liable to be dismissed for laches-Impugned order of rejection sent by registered post not received back-Held, order was	Dismissing the petition, this Court HELD : 1, The petitioner is guilty of laches. The order rejecting the post-confirmation petition filed by the petitioner was duly communicated to him. No person would have kept quiet for a period of more than te	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
18	P. CHANDRAMOULY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	Coram: M.M. PUNCHHI , KJ. REDDY	22/07/1994	Service Law-Army Act. 1950--Act applicable to General Reserve Engineers Force--Court-Martial constituted under warrant of Chief of the Army Staff-Authority to the Chief Engineer to conduct the Court-Martial-Legality of. Army Act, 1950-Sec. 63 as a	Dismissing the appeal, this court HELD : 1.1. Raising objections to jurisdiction was not available to the appellants because of the settled position in law that the GREF was part and parcel of the Armed forces to which the Army Act was applicable.	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
19	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. R.K.L.D. AZAD	Coram: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)	09/08/1995	Army Act, 1950/Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961 (Part I) Sections 71, 73, 123/Regulation 113-Officer committing an offence- Subjected to Army Act even after attaining age of superannuation- Subsequently dismissed from service-Whether justif	Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. A person who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 can be dismissed from service for committing an offence under the Act even after he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. [603-G] Major (Re	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
20	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. MAJOR GENERAL MADAN LAL YADAV [RETD.]	Coram: RAMASWAMY, K.	22/03/1996	Army Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954: S.123(2)/Rule 45-Liability of offender ceased to be subject to Act- Constitution of general Court Martial-Trial-Commencement of-Held, trial commences the moment general Court Martial assembles to consider the ch	Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The trial of the respondent commenced on 25.2.1987 on which date the general Court-Martial assembled, i.e. within six months after the respondent had ceased to be subject to the Army Act, 1950 on his r	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
21	MAJOR KADHA KRISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)	25/03/1996	Army Act, 1950 : Sections 19, 122, 127. Army Rules, 1954 : Rule 14. Service Law-Army Officer- Misconduct - Termination of service - Trial- Summary procedure- Bar on account of limitation - Termination of service on the ground that trial was im	Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of Division Bench, this Court HELD : 1. Once the period of limitation of a trial is over the authorities cannot take action under Rule 14 (2). The power under Rule 14 cannot be exercised in a m	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
22	MAJOR R.S. BUDHWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)	08/05/1996	Criminal law : Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 and 109 r/w S.34-Murder-Abetment to commit-Accomplices supported charge levelled against accused-Evidence of accomplices corroborated by circumstantial evidence-Value of accomplices' evidence- Prop	Disposing of the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. In respect of the appellants-accused sentenced to life imprisonment the Judge-Advocate in his closing address to the Genera! Court Martial properly explained the value of the evidence of an accompli	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
23	UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. MAJOR A. HUSSAIN, IC- 14827	Coram: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA	08/12/1997	Constitution of India : Articles 226 and 227-Court martial proceedings- Subject to judicial review under Article 226-But not to superintendence under Article 227-No interference-Court martial properly convened and fair procedure followed. Army	Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this court HELD : 1.1. The High Court acted wrongly in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. There was no irregularity or illegality in the GCM proceeding	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
24	THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL & ORS. Vs. COL. ANILTEJ SINGH DHALIWAL	Coram: M.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN	12/12/1997	Evidence Act, 1872-Section 94-Conditions for applicability of-Docu-ment admitted by the signatory thereto-Held, section will apply when the execution of the document is admitted and no vitiating circumstance has been put forward against the same.	Partly allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Neither Section 92 nor Section 94 of the Evidence Act is attracted in this case. Section 94 will come into play only when there is a document and its language has to be considered with reference	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
25	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. CAPT.A.P. BAJPAI	Coram: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA	20/02/1998	Service Law : Army Act, 1950 : Sections 39(b), 52(a), 153, 180 and 164(2). Confirming authority-Revisional jurisdiction under S. 160-Scope- Confirming authority without intending to interfere with the discretion of the court directed General	Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. In view of Section 160 of the Army Act, 1950 and Rule 68 of the Army Rules, 1954 and Note 6 thereto the finding or sentence of the Court- Martial can be revised once by the confirming authority. If after	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
26	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. SUBEDAR RAM NARAIN ETC.	Coram: S.P. BHARUCHA , G.T NANAVATI , B.N. KIRPAL	15/09/1998	Army Act, 1950 :. Sections 40(a), 48 and 71-Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I)-Regulation 113(a) and 16(a). Service Law--Army-Forfeiture of pensions-Junior Commissioned Officer-Court Martial--Dismissal--Consequential ineligibility f	Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, this Court HELD : 1. Regulation 113 of the Army Act makes it clear that a Junior Commissioned Officer or a person belonging to other rank or a non-combatant (enroll	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
27	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. NO. 664950 IM HAVILDAR/CIERK SC BAGARI	Coram: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN.	15/04/1999	Army Order No 11 of 1987, Rules 1 & 2-Grant of Study Leave to Regular Commissioned Officers-Non grant to Junior Commissioned Officers, Non- Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks-Order founded on intelligible differentia and has relation to the obj	In the appeal by the Union of India on the question whether Army Order No. 11 of 1987 was discriminatory, this Court HELD : 1.1. Army Order No. 11 of 1987 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [698-F] 1.2. Broadly speaking, the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
28	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR	Coram: G.B.PATTANAIK, K.T.THOMAS	12/05/1999	Constitution of India Articles 226 and 227-Judicial Review of Court Martial proceedings- Scope- Power to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings- Held, not permissibles-Limited to finding out any infraction in procedure prescribed	Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. When Defence personnel serving in Army. Navy or Air Force commit any offence committed by them are dealt with by the special provisions contained in the Army Act or the Navy Act or the Air Force Act and	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
29	UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SADHA SINGH	Coram: K.T.THOMAS, M.B.SHAH	25/10/1999	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 5 and 433A Army Act, 1950: Sections 69,177,179-190 Life imprisonment-Premature release-Accused-Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 69 of Army Act-Life imprisonment-Actual imprisonment undergo	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : In the present case, respondent was convicted under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for the offence of murder. It is true that Army Act is a special Act inter alia providing for investigation, trial and pun	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
30	UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. CHARANJIT S. GILL & ORS.	Coram: G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.	24/04/2000	Army Act, 1950-Sections 39(1) & 63-Army Rules, 1954-Rules 39, 40 & 102- Court Martial proceedings-Judge-Advocate lower in rank than the accused officer-Whether permissible-Held, Judge-Advocate though not forming part of the court, yet being an int	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD 1.1. The judge-advocate though not forming a part of the court, yet being an integral part of it is required to possess all such qualifications and be free from the disqualifications which relate to the appo	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement