SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 275

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Som Datt Datta, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 118 of 1968,
D/- 20-9-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Datta, Advocate (Petitioner was also produced in Court), for Petitioner, Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India (M/s. B. D. Sharma and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Respondents (Nos. 1 and 5).

Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, B.DUTTA, C.K.DAFTARY, R.H.Dhebar

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 and 149 - Army Act, 1950 - Section 165, 164 , 139 (6), 125, 2 (ii), (viii), (xvii), 34 to 70, 69, 125 and 126 - Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 – Section 549, 243, 245, 247, or 248 - Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 - Air Force Act, 1950 - National Health Service Act, 1946 - Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1953 - Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 3, 4, 5, 50 (2), 121 (4), 121, 61 and 62 - Army Officers - Games and Sports Entertainment - Used Filthy Language – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether Court Martial had jurisdiction to try and convict petitioner of offences under Sections 304 and 149, Indian Penal Code - Whether this argument is valid it is necessary to scrutinize provisions of Army Act - Whether or not statutory tribunal chose to give reasons for its decision – Held, In present case it is manifest that there is no express obligation imposed by Section 164 or by Section 165 of Army Act on confirming authority or upon Central Government to give reasons in support of its decision to confirm proceedings of Court Martial - Mr. Dutta has been unable to point out any other section of Act or any of rule made therein from which necessary implication can be drawn that such a duty is cast upon Central Government or upon confirming authority - Apart from any requirement imposed by statute or statutory rule expressly or by necessary implication, Court is unable to accept contention of Mr. Dutta that there is any general principle or any rule of natural justice a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons in support of its decision - Statement may be refused or specification of reasons restricted on grounds of national security, and tribunal may refuse to give statement to a person not principally concerned with decision if it thinks that to give it would be against interests of any person primarily concerned - Tribunals may also be exempted by Lord Chancellor from duty to give reasons but Council on Tribunals must be consulted on any proposal to do so - As already stated, there is no express obligation imposed in present case either by S. 164 or by S. 165 of Indian Army Act on confirming authority or on Central Government to give reasons for its decision – Court have also not been shown any other section of Army Act or any other statutory rule from which necessary implication can be drawn that such a duty is cast upon Central Government or upon confirming authority – Court therefore reject argument of petitioner that order of Chief of the Army Staff confirming finding of Court-Martial under S. 164 of Army Act or order of Central Government dismissing appeal under S. 165 of Army Act are in any way defective in law - Application dismissed.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J.: In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued under Art. 32 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the proceedings before the General Court Martial No. JAG 26/66-67/AA of 1965 from the Judge Advocate General (Army branch), Army Headquarters whereby the petitioner was found guilty of charges under Sec. 304 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a period of 6 years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering. Cause has been shown by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Union of India and other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in February, 1964 and was posted as Second Lt. (E. C. 55461) and was attached to 397 Engineering Construction Equipment Company in December, 1964. In August, 1965 the petitioner was posted as a Quarter Master and was transferred to Madras along with the Company. It appears that Wednesday. September 1, 1965 was to be celebrated as the Raising Day of the Unit when Games and Sports entertainment and Bara Khana (evening dinner) were to be arranged. In this celebration, all officers an other ranks of the Unit had to take some part and a number of other Army officers were to be received and entertained on behalf of the Unit. At the variety entertainment Punjabis and Garhwalis took part and each party was given free one bottle of rum. But it is alleged that the Purblic were not given an opportunity to put up their show and were not given free a bottle of rum. They were consequently aggrieved for this reason. The variety entertainment concluded at about 1900 hours at the end of which rum was issued to the jawans. The bara khana was to commence at 2000 hours. As there was a delay in the assembly of the men at the dining hall, Maj. Agarwal sent the petitioner to the lines to find out the cause for the delay and to get the men quickly. The petitioner went to the lines and it is alleged that the accused used filthy language while addressing the men. Some of the Purbias including the deceased Spr. Bishwanath Singh protested against the use of such language. Though the petitioner expressed regret, the men were not satisfied. A few of the Sikh jawans, including some of the accused sided with the petitioner and there was a heated argument between the two groups on their way to the dining hall. The bara khana was served in two sittings. The petitioner did not join the first sitting but joined the second sitting which consisted of about 30 to 40 men. The quarrel which started between the two groups earlier was continued in the dining hall. The lights went off for a few minutes and when the lights came on, it was observed that a scuffle was going on in the middle of the ball between the petitioner and other Sikh jawans and the deceased. As the scuffle progressed, the deceased was surrounded by petitioner No. 1 and the other accused persons and the group moved towards the service counter. The lights went off for a second time. In the darkness tables, benches and plates were hurled about. Most of the men ran out of the dining hall. It is alleged that accused No. 6 was seen stabbing with a knife Spr. Bishwanath Singh and the latter slumped to the ground. Accused No. 3 hit him with a soot rake. When the lights came on after a few minutes, the petitioner and the other accused were found standing near the place where Spr. Bishwanath Singh had fallen. Consequently, Maj. Agarwal arrived at the scene and took Spr. Bishwanath Singh to the MI room where he was found dead by Maj. Koley, the Medical Officer. It appears at on September 2, 1965 at about 0400 hours the matter was reported to the Civil Police by Second Lt. F. D. A. Jesudian. A case under S. 302, Indian Penal Code was registered as crime No. 726/1965 at Pallavaran Police Station, Madras. Shri Bashyam, Inspector of Police reached the pl


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top