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

1968 Supreme(Del) 104

T.V.R.TATACHARI, I.D.DUA, S.K.KAPUR
JOGINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJMER SINGH, Hans Raj, K.C.Pandit, M.G.Chitkara, RAMESH CHAND GOSWAMI

I. D. Dua

( 1 ) THE principal question requiring determination by us is whether non- compliance with the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 framed under section 549 (1), Cr. P. C. (hereafter called the Rules) goes to the root of the inherent jurisdiction of the committing Magistrate and of the Court trying the case pursuant to the commitment order or whether it is a mere irregularity, the effect of which is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the each case. The facts giving rise to this reference are contained in the referring order dated 25th June, 1968 and, therefore, need not be repeated. That order may be read as a part of this order. Section 549, Cr. P. C. , and the relevant rules framed thereunder may now be reproduced :-

"s. 549 (1 ).-Delivery to military authorities of persons liable to be tried by Court martial.-The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Code and the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, and the Air Force Act and any similar law for the time being in force as to the cases in which persons subject to military, naval or air force law, shall be tried





















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top