Civil offences under the Army Act may be concurrently tried by civil courts and court-martials; proper authority notification is essential for jurisdictional clarity.

1. The order in this revision shall also dispose of criminal revision No. 199 of 1961.

2. These are applications for revising the order of the Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, dated 30/8/1960, whereby he held that the proceedings initiated before him, on a complaint by Shri Mahabir Prasad, for offence under S.342, S.352 and S.500 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Major Gopinathan, an officer of the Armed Forces and as such subject to the Army Act, shall proceed, notwithstanding the fact that the Commanding Officer of the accused (Major Gopinathan) had given notice to the Magistrate that in his opinion he (the accused) should be tried by a court - martial.

3. Facts, which are necessary for understanding the controversy, are as follows :
Shri Mahabir Prasad filed a complaint against Major Gopinathan, the applicant, and ten others for offences under S.341, S.342, S.352, S.500 and S.504 read with S.34 and S.147 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate first Class, Jabalpur. After examination of the complainant, the learned Magistrate registered the complaint for offence under S.342, S.352 and S.500 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summonses to the accused for their appearance on 18/7/1960. On 30/7/1960, the applicant Major Gopinathan filed an application before the Magistrate claiming that he was triable by a court - martial alone and not by an ordinary criminal court. The aforesaid objection was overruled by the Magistrate by his order dated 18/8/1960. He, however, issued a written notice to the Commanding Officer of the accused Major Gopinathan as required by R.4 of the Rules framed by the Union Government under S.549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). In answer to the notice, the Commanding Officer intimated the Magistrate as required by R.5 of the Rules that in his opinion the accused Major Gopinathan should be tried by a court - martial. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the said reply held that unless charges were framed against the accused by appropriate authority under the Army Act, his (the accused's) liability to be tried by a court - martial did not arise and consequently the provisions of S.549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not attracted to bar his jurisdiction to try the accused. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was moved to refer the case to this Court under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; but he, having declined to do so, the applicant (accused Major Gopinathan) has himself moved this Court for revising the order of the Magistrate dated 30/8/1960. The Commanding Officer, who had moved the Magistrate under R.5 of the Rules, has also come up in revision against the same order. Both these revisions are being dealt with by this order.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that offences under S.342, S.352 and S.500 of the Indian Penal Code are, no doubt, 'civil offences' liable to be tried by ordinary criminal courts; but by virtue of S.69 of the Army Act, they are also deemed to be offences under that Act and liable to be tried by a court - martial. There was thus a conflict of jurisdiction between the two courts which were both competent to try the accused Major Gopinathan for the alleged offences which had to be resolved by taking recourse to S.549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Under R.5 of the Rul