Judgment

( 1 ) THESE four appeals have been filed against judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting the claims of the appellants who have been convicted by the General Courts-Martial for offences under the Army Act and are undergoing their sentences of varying terms of imprisonment for the grant of benefit to them of the provision for set-off contained in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has granted certificates of fitness under Article 134a of the Constitution and it is on the strength of those certificates that these appeals have been preferred to this Court.

( 2 ) THE common question of law that arises in these appeals concerns the applicability of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to persons sentenced to undergo imprisonment by General Courts-Martial under the Army Act. The position under the Army Act will equally govern persons sentenced to undergo imprisonment by Courts-Martial under the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.

( 3 ) IN the judgments under appeal, the High Court has followed an earlier ruling of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Ram Labhaya Sharma v. Union of India in Criminal Writ No. 40 of 1975 decided on 12/12/1975 wherein it was held that the benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not available to convicts, who are tried, convicted and sentenced by Courts-Martial.

( 4 ) THERE is a divergence of views between different High Courts on this question. The High Court of Madras in P. P. Chandrasekaran v. Govt. of India 1977 Cri LJ 677 (a case of Courts-Martial under the Navy Act) and in T. S. Ramani v. The Supdt. of Prisons 1982 Cri LJ 892 (Courts-Martial under the Army Act) has taken the view that the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be claimed by persons convicted by Courts-Martial. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Delhi in F. R. Jesuratnam v. Chief of Air Staff, 1976 Cri LJ 65 dealing with a case of Courts-Martial under the Air Force Act.

( 5 ) A Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala has however, taken a contrary view in Subramanian v. Officer Commanding Armoured Static Workshop 1979 Cri LJ 617 and the said decision was referred to and followed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Singh Bishit v. Union of India 1986 Cri LJ 563.

( 6 ) AN examination of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Army Act (as well as the corresponding provisions in the Navy Act and the Air Force Act) makes it abundantly clear that Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure can have no applicability whatever in respect of persons convicted and sentenced by Courts-Martial.

( 7 ) SECTION 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that nothing contained in the said Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time. being in force. The relevant Chapters of the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act embody a completely self-contained comprehensive Code specifying the various offences under those Acts and prescribing the procedure for detention and custody of offenders, investigation and trial of the offenders by Courts Martial, the punishments to be awarded for the various offences, confirmation and revision of the sentences imposed by Courts-Martial, the execution of such sentences and the grant of pardons, remissions and suspensions in respect of such sentences. These enactments, therefore, constitute a special law in force conferring special jurisdiction and powers on Courts-Martial and prescribing a special form of procedure for the trial of the offences under those Acts. The effect of Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to render the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure inapplicable in respect of all matters covered by