High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K M NATARAJAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S RATNAVEL PANDIAN
T. S. Ramani - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Madras and Others - Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 10953 of 1983,
Decided On : 31 January 1984
ARMY ACT - SECTION 428, CR.P.C. - APPLICABILITY - COURT MARTIAL - SENTENCE - SET OFF OF PRE-CONVICTION DETENTION - ARMY ACT IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE - SECTION 428, CR.P.C. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO PERSONS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BY A COURT-MARTIAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an army personnel, was convicted and sentenced by a Court-Martial under Section 64(e) of the Army Act, 1950 for receipt of illegal gratification. He filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the sentence, contending that he was entitled to have the pre-conviction detention suffered by him set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him under Section 428, Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 428, Cr.P.C. is not applicable to persons convicted and sentenced by a Court-Martial under the Army Act, 1950. The Army Act is a self-contained Code providing for the trial of army personnel for various offences, from the stage of indictment, arrest, etc., up to the stage of the execution of sentences. The procedure to be followed by a Court-Martial is elaborate and generally follows the pattern of the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there are material differences. All the members of the Court-Martial are military officers who are not expected to be trained Judges as the presiding officers of the Criminal Court are. No judgment is recorded except a finding and the sentence passed thereon. No appeal is provided against the order of the Court-Martial.
Issues: Whether Section 428, Cr.P.C. is applicable to persons convicted and sentenced by a Court-Martial under the Army Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Army Act is a special law within the definition of Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The kind of punishment that has been imposed on the petitioner is specifically provided by Section 64(e) of the Army Act. The Army Act is a self-contained Code, prescribing the mode of investigation, trial, sentence, execution etc., that is to say, the law regarding the procedure to be followed in such an inquiry is found in the Army Act itself which confers jurisdiction on the Court-Martial in respect of the offences to be tried by the Court-Martial. Therefore, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be made applicable to the trial of cases by the Court-Martial, except to the extent to which the Army Act makes it applicable to them, that is, to a very limited extent.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed by one Mrs. T. S. Ramani, praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus setting at liberty forthwith her husband M. N. Manoharan, ex-Naik/Clerk, an Army personnel, who has been incarcerated in the Central Prison, Madras, in pursuance of the conviction by the District Court-Martial, Avadi, under section 64(e) of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Army Act) for receipt of illegal gratification, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition to the punishment of reduction in rank and dismissal from service, inflicted on him.
2. Though various allegations have been made in the affidavit which are refuted in the counter-affidavit, for the limited purpose of disposing of this writ petition, we feel that it would suffice to state that the said Manoharan was arrested and taken to military custody by his Commanding Officer before the commencement of his trial on 16-4-1983 under section 101 of the Army Act read with Paragraph 392 of the Regulations for the Army, 1962, and kept under detention till 18-9-1983, on which date he was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.
3. The only submission made by Mr. U. N. R. Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is that the detenu Manoharan is, by virtue of Section 428, Cr.P.C., entitled to have the pre-conviction detention suffered by him set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him and that his liability to undergo imprisonment for his conviction should be restricted only to the remainder and in that case, he is to be set at liberty forthwith. According to him, notwithstanding the fact that the Army Act is a special enactment regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into and trying the offences, as prescribed under the provisions of the Act as well as under the Rules made thereunder, inasmuch as there is no specific provision in the Army Act either expressly or impliedly excluding the application of the benevolent provisions of Section 428, Cr.P.C., to the persons convicted and sentenced under the said Act, the pre-conviction detention suffered by the detenu in this case should be given a set-off. In support of this proposition, learned counsel would place reliance on Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Mr. N. Jothi, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, in attempting to meet the arguments or Mr. Rao, submitted that the Army Act is a special law and as the Act and the Rules made thereunder lay down a complete and comprehensive procedure with regard to the trial of the offenders, award of sentences and the execution thereof. Section 428 Cr.P.C., has no application to a person sentenced by a Court-Martial. Secondly, he states that the Court-Martial has in fact, before passing the sentence, taken into consideration the pre-conviction detention undergone by the detenu, and therefore, the grievance expressed by the petitioner is misconceived.
5. Before launching on a discussion about the contentions raised by the respective counsel, we shall give a brief note of the provisions coming under the various chapters of the Army Act, dealing with the functions, classification of offences, punishments, procedure to the adopted with regard to trial, execution of sentences etc.
6. The present Army Act, 1950 (Act 46 of 1950) was enacted in supersession of the Indian Army Act of 1911 (Act 8 of 1911) and was brought into force in July, 1950. Thus, the Act was enacted after the Constitution came into force on 26-1-1950. The Army Rules of 1954, made by the Central Government by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 191 of the Army Act, were made in supersession of the Indian Army Act Rules made under the Indian Army Act of 1911 and of the Army Act Rules of 1950, and they came into force from the date of the publication viz., from 27-11-1954. Therefore, we are concerned at present only with the present Army Ac
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.