Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Santosh Karwade, S/o Late Mr.Sitaram Karwade - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 1002 of 2024
Decided on : 22-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV SRI.YESHWANT SHENOY, SMT.AYSHA ABRAHAM
For the Respondent: ADV SRI.AR.L.SUNDARESAN, ASGI, SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
Important Points
Subject
Military Law - Court-Martial Procedure
Act Referred
NAVY DISCIPLINE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS REGULATIONS : Reg.148, Reg.151, Reg.163(1), Reg.178(3)
NAVY ACT : S.101, S.18(2)(e), S.18(2)(f), S.184, S.184(2)(d), S.2, S.34, S.76, S.88, S.93, S.97(8)
ARMY ACT : S.21
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.173, S.2(h), S.226, S.232, S.24, S.25, S.311, S.5
EVIDENCE ACT : S.118
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Navy personnel, objected to the trial process under the Court-Martial, claiming bias and lack of fair trial. Key reliefs included declaring Regulation 178(3) unconstitutional and violations of Navy Regulations.
Findings of Court:
The right to a fair trial requires separation of prosecutorial and investigative roles. The Navy Regulations were determined to provide a framework for investigation and prosecution distinct from procedures outlined in the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the investigating officer could act as prosecutor and whether Regulation 178(3) violates the right to fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that fairness in trial necessitates the distinct roles of investigating officers and prosecutors, thereby ruling that appointing the investigating officer as prosecutor may result in bias.
Result: The petitioner's challenge to Regulation 178(3) was denied, but it was affirmed that the investigating officer cannot serve as a prosecutor.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges court-martial trial under navy act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner alleges unfair trial and seeks multiple declarations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. procedure and roles under navy regulations are distinct. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 40) |
| 4. article 33 limits applicability of fundamental rights for military personnel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. importance of fair trial in military law and implications of dual roles. (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion on constitutionality of regulation 178(3) and roles of officers. (Para 41 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
The petitioner, a Navy personnel with 31 years of service, challenges the trial held against him by the Court-Martial under the Navy Act, 1957 (for short, the Navy Act), in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Factual Background
2. The petitioner joined the Indian Navy as a Sailor in July 1993. He currently holds the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer, Logistics (Finance & Administration), First Class.
3. A Court-Martial was convened under the Navy Act to try the petitioner on the following charges:
“The accused Santosh Karwade, MCPO LOG (F&A) 1, 179845R, Indian Navy then belonging to Indian Naval Hospital Ship Sanjivani and presently borne on the books of Indian Naval Ship Venduruthy, being a person subject to Naval Law is charged for that he:-
(a) Between 30 Apr 21 to 07 May 21, guilty of cheating Surg Lt. M.Balachandran (76581Y) in that he dishonestly induced the said officer to transfer a sum of Rs.1,10,595/-(Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five only) to his HDFC bank account no.00721150002065 for returning the unspend amount to Govt through MRO, with the intention of not doing the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.
(b) Between 30 Apr 21 to 07 May 21, guilty of cheating Surg Lt. Emil Andrews (76582Z) in that he dishonestly induced the said officer to transfer a sum of Rs.1,11,039/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand and Thirty Nine only) to his HDFC bank account no.00721150002065 for returning the unspend amount to Govt through MRO, with the intention of not doing the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.
(c) Between 24 Mar 21 to 01 May 21, guilty of cheating Surg Lt. KS Sheshan (76585F) in that he dishonestly induced the said officer to transfer a sum of Rs.1,11,396/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) to his HDFC bank account no.00721150002065 for returning the unspend amount to Govt through MRO, with the intention of not doing the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.
(d) Between 11 May 21 to 15 May 21, guilty of cheating Surg Lt. Chandu S. Raj (76594A) in that he dishonestly induced the said officer to transfer a sum of Rs.1,12,459/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Nine only) to his HDFC bank account no.00721150002065 for returning the unspend amount to Govt through MRO, with the intention of not doing the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.
(e) Did on 03 May 21, in his capacity as ALOGO (Pay) of INHS Sanjivani, forge MRO No 0013 iro Surg Lt. M.Balachandran (76581Y) for a sum of Rs.10,595/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five Rupees only) by adding numeral '1' and words 'one lakh' to the description of the amount, respectively in the individual copy of MRO for the unspend amount of Ty Duty, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Sectio
