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

1975 Supreme(SC) 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, P.K. GOSWAMI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Lt. Col. M. L. Kohli, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 548 of 1974, Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1974 and Special Leave Petn (Civil) No. 2760 of 1974,
D/- 16-1-1975.

Headnote:

Army Act - Section 123 - Army Rules - Regulation 392 (k) – Constitution of india,1950 - Article 33 - Defense Services Regulations - Special Leave - Petitioner withdrawing proceedings instituted by him in this Court Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India states at suggestion of Court that his client may not have any objection to making two ameliorative gestures firstly acting within ambit of Regulation 392 (k) of Defence Services Regulations concerned military authority may be inclined to direct that petitioner be not kept in custody or close arrest subject to reasonable conditions which he may choose to impose violation of which will certainly invite custody being taken of person of petitioner – Held, Secondly he submitted that according to his instructions petitioner is already being defended by an advocate denial of which right was stated to be a serious grievance - Assuming that there is no lawyer of his own choice defending him at moment counsel for State has no objection to petitioner appointing one of his own within two weeks from to-day - This is no special concession outside Army Rules because even under existing Rules there is discretion for concerned authority to permit defence through an advocate - Thus harsher grievances alleged by petitioner are happily resolved - With these observations we permit petitioner in Writ Petition and Special Leave Petition and appellant in Criminal Appeal to withdraw all proceedings - Order accordingly

Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Army Act with specific reference to certain provisions, particularly Section 123, and according to him, Article 33 does not cover ex-servicemen who are not serving members of the defence forces. Mr. Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner, argues that his client falls in this category and therefore cannot be tried by court martials. As the case proceeded, counsel chose to pray for permission to withdraw the three cases. We permit him to withdraw them.

2. Independently of the petitioner withdrawing the proceedings instituted by him in this Court, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, states, at the suggestion of the Court, that his client may not have any objection to making two ameliorative gestures: firstly, acting within the ambit of Regulation 392 (k) of the Defence Services Regulations the concerned military authority may be inclined to direct that the petitioner be not kept in custody or close arrest, subject to reasonable conditions which he may choose to impose (the violation of which will certainly invite custody being taken of the person of the petitioner). He will be enlarged on this basis. Secondly, he submitted that according to his instructions, the petitioner is already being defended by an advocate, (the denial of which right was stated to be a serious grievance by Mr. Mahajan). Assuming that there is no lawyer of his own choice defending him at the moment, counsel for the State has no objection to the petitioner appointing one of his own within two weeks from to-day. This is no special concession outside the Army Rules because, even under the existing Rules, there is discretion for the concerned authority to permit defence through an advocate. Thus the harsher grievances alleged by the petitioner are happily resolved. With these observations, we permit the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 548 of 1974 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2760 of 1974 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1974 to withdraw all the proceedings.

3. The interim orders passed previously will stand vacated.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1975 SC 612

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