Indian Military Cases in Supreme Court 1960- Contd 4

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
46	P.K. Choudhury Vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF)	Coram: S.B. SINHA, V.S. SIRPURKAR	13/03/2008	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.190 - Delay in filing complaint petition - Not condoned - Cognizance of offence after expiry of period of limitation - Held: Is bad in law - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.166, 167. s.197 - Sanction under - Requiremen	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Whereas s.166 IPC prescribes a sentence of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year; the sentence which can be imposed under s.167 IPC is one of either description for a term which may ex	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
47	Union of India & Anr Vs. V.N. Saxena	Coram: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM	01/04/2008	Service Law - Termination from Army Service - High Court quashed the order of termination, relying on a judgment passed by Supreme Court - On appeal, held: The foundation of judgment of High Court is the judgment of Supreme Court which was held to be	Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: Since the foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is Major Radha Krishnan's case, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitte	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
48	BACHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: C.K. THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	10/07/2008	Army Act, 1950 - ss. 63 and 109 - Court On allegation of crossing international border - Delinquent official held guilty and sentenced to two years imprisonment - Also dismissed from service - Sentence confirmed - Single Judge of High Court under wri	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Single Judge who was not justified in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the General Court Martial (GCM) which was	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
49	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RAJPAL SINGH	Coram: C.K. THAKKER, D.K. JAIN	07/11/2008	Army Service: Army Rules, 1954; r.13(2A), 13(3)(i), (ii) and (iii): Junior Commissioned Officer placed in low medical category (Permanent) - Incumbent expressing his willingness to continue in service - Release Medical Board recommending disc	Dismissing the appeal and Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. The medical status of an army personnel is fixed on the basis of the norms, containing five components viz. (a) psychology (b) hearing (c) appendarist (d) physical and (e) e	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
50	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. V.N. SINGH	Coram: HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL	08/04/2010	Army Act, 1950: s. 122 - Period of limitation for trial - Irregularities with regard to local purchase of certain goods in a Army Depot - Disciplinary action against an officer - General Court Martial convened and punishment of forfeiture of 11	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 prescribes period of limitation for trial by Court Martial of any person subject to the provisions of the Act for any offence committed by him. A fair reading of s. 122	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
51	ARUN RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, H.L. DATTU	13/05/2010	Penal Code, 1860/Army Act, 1950: s.302 and s. 69 of Army Act - Court Martial proceeding - For trial of offence of murder - Eye-witness to the incident - Dying declaration made to another witness - Offence alleged to be result of an incident occu	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is not bad in law. Under Exception I to Section 300 IPC, an injury resulting into death of the person would not be considered as mu	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
52	CHARANJIT LAMBA Vs. COMMNDNG.OFFICER,SOUTHERN COMMAND & ORS.	Coram: DALVEER BHANDARI, T.S. THAKUR	06/07/2010	Service Law - Dismissal - On ground of misconduct - Appellant, a Major in the Indian Army - Dismissed on the ground of committing the misconduct of a) making false claim towards payment of transport charges of his household luggage and car and b)	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The courts in India have recognized the doctrine of proportionality as one of the ground for judicial review. The doctrine of proportionality is now a well recognized ground on which a Writ Court can i	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
53	J.S. SEKHON Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R. DAVE	10/08/2010	Army Act, 1950 - s.122 - Conviction by General Court Martial (GCM) of Garrison Engineer for defrauding the Army - Conviction challenged on ground that the convening of the GCM was barred by time in view of s.122 - Held: The limitation period for h	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 provides the period of limitation for trial, and prescribes that no trial by court martial of any person shall be commenced after the expiration of a period of three ye	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4

Indian Military Cases in Supreme Court 1960- Contd 3

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
31	SUKHDEV SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.	Coram: M. JAGANNADHA RAO , M.B. SHAH	19/10/2000	Service Law: Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965: Rule 2. Military Service-Counting, of-Towards seniority-Held: The military service rendered in the three principal wings of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and A	Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The words, "three wings" used in Rule 2 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 have to be understood in the light of Section 3(xi) of the Army Act, 1950 which defines, the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
32	U.O.I. & ORS. Vs. HARJEET SINGH SANDHU	Coram: CJI, R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR	11/04/2001	Army Rules, 1954 : Rule 14. Officer-Termination of service of-By Central Government-Trial by court- martial-Inexpediency or impracticability of-Held: Services of an of-ficer may be terminated under S. 19 of the Army Act read with R. 14 either be	Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The principles of interpretation of statutes which apply to any other statute also apply to the legislation dealing with defence services; however, the considerations of the security of the State and enfo	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
33	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. R.K. SHARMA	Coram: K.T. THOMAS , S.N. VARIAVA	09/10/2001	Military Law: Army Act, 1950-Sections 45, 57, 63, 71 and 72-General Court Martial-Penalty of dismissal from service-High Court held charges established- However, it set aside the order of dismissal as the sentence awarded was too harsh consider	Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The Respondent did not obey the command from the Headquarter, did not make payment of certain amount and also falsified records in order to make out a case that he had already gone to two of the forw	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
34	UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs. P.O. YADAV	Coram: B.N. KIRPAL , SHIVARAJ V. PATL , P. VENKATARAMA REDDI	16/10/2001	Military Law : Army Act, 1950-Section 71-Pension Regulations for Army, 1961- Regulation J6(a) : Navy Act 1957-Section 81-The Navy (Pension) Regulations 1964- Regulation 15(2): Court Martial-Pensionary benefits-Forfeiture of-Respondents gui	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. High Court was not right in quashing the orders of forfeiture of pension passed by the President/Central Government under the Army Pension Regulation 16(a) or Navy Pension Regulation 15(2) on the ground t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
35	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. L.D. BALAM SINGH	Coram: U.C. BANERJEE, Y.K. SABHARWAL	24/04/2002	Constitution of India, 1950-Article 33-Fundamental rights---Applicability of to army personnel-Held, army personnel does not form a class of citizen falling outside the purview of the Constitution-The provision by itself does not abrogate any righ	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. An Army Personnel is as much a citizen as any other individual citizen of this country. Incidentally, the provisions as contained in Article 33 does not by itself abrogate any rights and its applicabi	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
36	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVENDRA BIKARAM SINGH	Coram: N. SANTOSH HEGDE , B.P. SINGH	24/04/2003	Military Laws: Navy Act, 1957-Sections 97, 101, 102, 162 and 163-Court Martial proceedings-Conviction-Objection as to competency of members of Court Martial proceedings to act as impartial judge-Trial Judge Advocate disposing of the objection h	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The first part of clause (a) of section 102 of the Navy Act, 1957 refers to any objection against a member on the ground, which affects his competency to act as an impartial judge. It enables the prose	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
37	Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.	Coram: K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, B.N.SRIKRISHNA	13/11/2003	Army Act, 1911-Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943- S-l I Military Nursing Act-Determination of Dress Code for Indian Military Nursing Services (IMNS)-The Code challenged as violative of Article 14 of Constitution as the dress code mad	Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1. That Indian Military Nursing Service is a separate class, sui generis, even though an auxiliary force of the Indian Military, is an undeniable fact. The historical background in which this force was	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
38	U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER	18/10/2005	Service Law: Border Security Force Rules, 1969: Rule 20-Misconduct-Termination of service of Officers-By Central Government-During raid in the hideout of militants two militants apprehended-Huge quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives and	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court is plainly in error in holding that it is only the Central Government which is competent to act in terms of Rule 20(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The expression "as the case may	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
39	Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. etc.etc.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE	22/03/2006	Army Act 1950-Sections 18, 69. Official Secrets Act 1923-Section 3 (1) (c) Constitution of India-Article 226 and 310 Writ Petition-Maintainability of fresh Writ Petition-Court Martial Proceedings-Dismissal from Service-Writ Petitions challen	Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. On a bare reading of the High Court's order and the averments in the writ petitions, one thing is crystal clear that there was no definite allegation against any p	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
40	Union of India and Ors. Vs. Capt. Satendra Kumar	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	18/07/2006	Service Law: Army Act, 1950; Section 19/Army Rules; Rule 13-A/Defence Service Regulations, Para 79: Commissioned Officer in Army-Promotion-Examination in two stages, Part B and Part D-Incumbent appearing in Part D examination without qualifying	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The amended Army Instructions raising the period for qualifying the part B promotional examination from 13 years to 20 years though issued on 20th August, 1999 were made applicable with effect from 24.4.1998.	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
41	Romesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA	01/08/2006	Army Act, 1950: Section 20(1)-Dismissal-Held, on facts, under the proviso to Rule 17 the Chief of the Army Staff and other officers are competent to order dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in the main part of the Ru	Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. The Chief of the Army Staff had followed the requisite procedure and the certificate as contemplated in the proviso to Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 has been given. The note clearly shows that various	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
42	Pradeep Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors	Coram: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT , LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	19/04/2007	Army Act, 1950: ss. 39-A and 116-Dismissal for absence without leave-Acting Naik in Army-Remaining absent without leave-Withdrawal of rank and Summary Court-Martial-Punishment of dismissal awarded-Held: on facts, case is covered by rules relating	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, before respondent's absence from duty, he was in the acting rank of Naik. Therefore, the case is covered by rules relating to acting ranks contained in Army Instructions Nos. 84 and	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
43	Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Rajkumar and Ors	Coram: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT , LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	24/04/2007	Service Law: Air Force Act, 1950; S.161 (2)/Air Force Rules, 1969; Rules 40 and 46: Dismissal form service-Group Captain-Allegations of financial impropriety-General Court Martial-Dismissal from service-Finding and sentence confirmed by Chief o	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There was no challenge to the finding that there was no senior army officer available. Rule 46 of the Air Force Rules, which relates to the eligibility of the member does not speak of seniority. It speak	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
44	Sheel Kr. Roy Vs. Secretary M/O Defence & Ors	Coram: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU	18/05/2007	Army Act, 1950: s.3(a)-Absence from duty-Recommendation of Court of Enquiry that absence period to be regularized as during period of absence he was admitted in Hospital-Order of dismissal and 6 years rigorous imprisonment passed without consideri	Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. From the records produced by the respondents, it is evident that the appellant had remained in one or the other Army Medical Hospitals from 8.7.1990. Although he is said to have absented himself on	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
45	Ram Sunder Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors	Coram: TARUN CHATTERJEE, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	11/07/2007	Army Act, 1950; Ss. 20, 22 and 63/Army Rules, 1954; Rr. 12, 13 and 177: Indiscipline-Prejudicial act to good order-Employee serving as Petrol, Oil and Lubricant Clerk allegedly received money from an outsider for selling of gas illegally-Complaint-Co	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order of discharge of the appellant from the Army service has been passed by the competent authority under Section 22 of the Army Act read with Rule 13 on the grounds covered under Column (2)(v) of t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement

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

Indian Military Cases in Supreme Court 1960-

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
1	MAJOR E. G. BARSAY Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY	Coram: SUBBARAO, K.	24/04/1961	Criminal Trial-Criminal Misconduct-Army Officer tried by Special Judge-jurisdiction-Sanction for Prosecution given by Deputy Secretary-Validity-Investigation by Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Delhi-Legality- Conspir	The appellant and five other persons, three of Them not being public servants, were charged with criminal conspiracy to dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or convert to their own use military stores and with dishonestly and fraudul	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
2	RAM SARUP Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER	Coram: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), WANCHOO, K.N., DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA, MUDHOLKAR, J.R.	12/12/1963	Army Act (XLVI of 1950), ss. 125, 126 and 164-Scope of- Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 33-Effect on fundamental rights-s. 125 of Army Act if violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.	The General Court Martial sentenced the petitioner, a sepoy, to death under s. 69 of the Army Act read with s. 302 of the Indian 932 Penal Code for shooting dead two sepoys and a Havildar. The Central Government confirmed the sentence. The petiti	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
3	UNION OF INDIA Vs. S. K. RAO	Coram: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)	22/11/1971	Army Act, 1950, ss. 19, 45 and 191 (2) (a), and Army Rules. 1954, r. 14-Whether r. 14, ultra vires.	The respondent, a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, was found to have committed acts of gross misconduct by a Court of Inquiry. The Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that his trial by a General Court Martial was inexpedi	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
4	DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, NEW DELHI Vs. LT. COL. S. K. LORAIYA	Coram: DWIVEDI, S.N.	24/08/1972	Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s. 549(1) and rules made thereunder--Army Act 1950, ss. 122 and 125-Army officer charged with offences under I.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by Special Judge-Procedure under s. 549(1) an	The respondent who was an army officer was alleged to have committed certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The offences were alleged to have been committed in the year 1962. The special	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
5	CAPTAIN HARISH UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS	Coram: ALAGIRISWAMI, A.	27/11/1972	Army Act, 1950, Sections 158 and 160-Upward revision of sentence Whether violative of natural justice principle in the circumstances of the case. Army Act, Section 160-Whether opportunity to be heard necessary when Confirming Officer de	The petitioner was found guilty by the Court Martial (acting under the Army Act) under section 392 IPC of committing robberies of a bank property and the private property of the Manager and peons of the Batik during the period of the libera	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
6	OUS KUTILINGAL ACHUDAN NAIR AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH	20/11/1975	Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 33-Scope of. Army Act, 1950, S.. 2(1)-Civilian employees of defence establishments-If could form trade unions.	On the question whether civilian employees of Defence Establishments have the right to form trade unions under Art, 19(1) (c) of the Constitution, ^ HELD: Article 33 of the Constitution provides an exception to the Preceding Ar	http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx
7	R. VISWAN & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS	Coram: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ), BHAGWATI, P.N., REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J), ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J), MISRA, R.B. (J)	06/05/1983	Army Act, 1950-S. 21-Constitutional validity of-Whether saved by Art. 33. Army Act, 1950-Sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4-'Force'- Meaning of. General Reserve Engineering Force. (GREF)-Whether it is 'force' within the meaning of sub-ss.	The petitioners who belonged to the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) were charged under s. 63 of the Army Act, 1950 on allegations inter alia that they had assembled in front of the Chief Engineer and shouted slogans demandi	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8	CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF AND OTHERS Vs. MAJOR DHARAM PAL KUKRETY	Coram: MADON, D.P.	21/03/1985	Constitution of India Article 226-Maintainability of writ petition at the stage of show cause notice to terminate the services of a service personnel by the Chief of the Army staff when the finding of a court martial even on revision is per	The respondent, a permanent commissioned officer of the Indian Army holding the substantive rank of captain and the acting rank of major, as a result of certain incidents which are alleged to have taken place on November 5 and 6, 1975 was or	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9	SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. USHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR.	Coram: THAKKAR, M.P. (J)	21/05/1986	Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952, Rules 3 and 4-Offences falling within purview of section 52 of Army Act, 1950-Trial by Magistrate-Procedure to be followed-'Special Judge', whether deemed to	The three respondents-accused were charged with offences which fell within the scope of section 52 of the Army Act of 1950. The ordinary criminal court and the Court Martial both had concurrent jurisdiction to try the said offences. T	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10	UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MAJOR GENERALH.C. PATHAK Vs. MAJOR S.K. SHARMA	Coram: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)	29/06/1987	Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--S. 475--Read with ss. 200 to 204 of the Code, and the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules--When a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence committed by a member of the Armed Forces and therea	An officer in the Army filed a complaint before a Magis- trate alleging that another officer has assaulted him, that the Commanding Officer to whom he had complained earlier had failed to take satisfactory action and thus both of them had committ	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11	VIDYA PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: RAY, B.C. (J)	10/02/1988	Army Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954: Sections 39(a), 71(e), 108 and 116/Rule 39(2)-Jawan-Absent without leave-Charge sheeted-Trial by Summary Court Martial-Held guilty-Dismissed from service-In writ petition assailing constitution of summary	% The appellant was appointed to the post of Craftsman (Jawan) on November 23, 1973. He was later promoted to the post of Naik in view of his good services and subsequently confirmed in that post. He served at various places in the coun	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12	LT. COL. K.D. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS	Coram: MISRA RANGNATH	20/04/1988	Army Act, 1950: Section 20, 191 and 192 and Special Army Instruction No. 1 dated January 9, 1974 Army Officer- Subjected to frequent medical examination-Downgrading and upgrading between shape-I and shape-III-Treated to have been reduced i	The appellant was granted a permanent Commission in the Indian Army in 1958 and appointed as a Second Lieutenant. He rose to the level of Lt. Colonel on 27th February, 1975. In March, 1976 he was directed to report to the Military Hospit	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13	LT. COLONEL K.D. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.	Coram: MISRA RANGNATH	31/03/1989	Army Act, 1964: Defence Services--Promotion--Unlike other government servants, requisite experience, consequent expo- sure and appropriate review by authorities, indispens- able--Individual capacity and special qualities--Basis for assessm	The appellant has filed a contempt petition against the Respondents, alleging that the directions dated 20.4.1988 of this Court, have not been complied with. The Respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for promoti	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. NAIK SUBEDAR CLK(S) BALESHWAR RAM AND ORS.	Coram: MISRA RANGNATH	27/10/1989	Army Act, 1950: Sections 52, 63. Army Rules 1954: Rule 22. Dismissal pursuant to General Court Martial--Validity of. Non-compliance with Rule--Effect of.	The respondents faced trial for the charge of theft. After a General Court Martial, they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced. All the three respondents were dismissed from service. The respondents filed a writ petition in t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15	S.N. MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA	Coram: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ), KANIA, M.H., SHETTY, K.J. (J), SAIKIA, K.N. (J), AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)	28/08/1990	Army Act 1950: Section 164--Court-Martial--Post confir- mation petition--Central Government--Whether bound to give reasons.	The Appellant was officiating as a Major though he held a substantive rank of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27, 1974 he took over as the Officer Commanding 38 Coy. A.S.C. (Sup) Type 'A' attached	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement

President vs. President

President of USA salutes the veteran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSI9jmZL9o&feature=relmfu

President Obama awards Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions during combat operations against an armed enemy in Paktya, Afghanistan in May, 2008. July 12, 2011.
Don't miss how the President lends his ears for the hero.




President of India tells veterans: 

Not your grand patron in chief

The letter says the name of the President should no longer be used in any document of the IESL
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/not-your-grand-patron-in-chief-president-tells-exservicemen/813310/