TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and discharge of an army personnel, following Summary Court Martial proceedings on the same allegations, were barred by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 121 of the Army Act, 1950. (ii) Whether the purported setting aside of the Summary Court Martial by the Deputy Judge-Advocate General under Section 162 of the Army Act, 1950 was valid. (iii) Whether the discharge proceedings under Rule 13 of the Army Rules and the consequential discharge certificate could stand.
Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and discharge of an army personnel, following Summary Court Martial proceedings on the same allegations, were barred by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 121 of the Army Act, 1950.
Analysis: Article 20(2) protects against being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence, and does not extend to every departmental or disciplinary consequence. The constitutional guarantee is confined to criminal prosecution culminating in punishment, and does not bar disciplinary action based on the same facts where the earlier proceeding does not amount to a final criminal conviction or where the later action is civil or administrative in character. Section 121 of the Army Act, 1950 likewise prohibits a second trial only where there has already been an acquittal or conviction by a court martial or criminal court, and the earlier court martial here had not attained that final character in the manner required by law.
Conclusion: The subsequent discharge action was not barred by double jeopardy.
Issue (ii): Whether the purported setting aside of the Summary Court Martial by the Deputy Judge-Advocate General under Section 162 of the Army Act, 1950 was valid.
Analysis: Section 162 of the Army Act, 1950 authorises only the competent reviewing officer to set aside proceedings or reduce sentence on merits, and not on merely technical grounds. Rule 133 of the Army Rules is a forwarding provision and does not confer the reviewing power on the Deputy Judge-Advocate General. The record did not show a valid order by the statutorily authorised reviewing authority, and the attempted interference rested on a technical objection to the plea recorded at trial, which was impermissible. The Summary Court Martial was otherwise legally sustainable under Section 161(1), which makes its finding and sentence executable forthwith without confirmation.
Conclusion: The purported setting aside of the Summary Court Martial was invalid.
Issue (iii): Whether the discharge proceedings under Rule 13 of the Army Rules and the consequential discharge certificate could stand.
Analysis: The discharge was founded on the same underlying misconduct and was used as a disciplinary consequence after the failed court martial process. The Court held that the Army authorities could proceed in accordance with law, and the proper statutory power was not defeated by the defective review. The discharge certificate could not be sustained in the form in which it had been issued, but the Army was not precluded from taking lawful action under the Act and Rules.
Conclusion: The discharge order was set aside, but lawful disciplinary action was left open.
Final Conclusion: The legal bar of double jeopardy did not prevent disciplinary consequences following the flawed summary court martial process, and the Court restored the court martial outcome while permitting the appellants to proceed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 20(2) bars only a second prosecution and punishment of a criminal character, and a court martial may be interfered with under the Army Act only by the statutorily competent reviewing authority on merits, not on technical grounds or by an unauthorised officer.
TaxTMI 
