IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Santosh Karwade, S/o Late Mr.Sitaram Karwade – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| 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
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P.
Union of India v. Parashotam Dass
Tarsem Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India and Others
R.Viswan and Others v. Union of India and Others
Union of India and Others v. Ex. Flt.Lt. G.S. Bajwa
Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India
L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India and Others
S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd and Others
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others
Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj
J.Jayalalithaa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others
Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Another
Katari Praveen v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The separation of investigative and prosecutorial roles is essential to ensure a fair trial, and thus an investigating officer cannot act as a prosecutor in the same case before a Court-Martial.
Point of law: irrespective of the executive or judicial nature of the office of the public prosecutor, it is certain that one expects impartiality and fairness from it in criminal prosecution
An Assistant Police Prosecuting Officer, not being categorized as a 'Police Officer,' is competent to conduct prosecutions under CrPC Section 25.
When a provision of a statute is made subject to another provision by Legislature, this evinces an intent that where latter provision is attracted, former would give way.
Public Prosecutors - It is in discharge of duties as a Prosecutor, he is ordained by law, by professional ethics or by his role as an Officer of Court, to employ only such means as are fair and legit....
Public prosecutor, and then the trial court's scrutiny, both play an essential role in safeguarding the accused's right to fair investigation, when faced with the might of the state's police machiner....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.