Court-martial review under Article 226 is limited to legality and fairness, not reappreciation of evidence.

A Supreme Court decision on court-martial review under the Army Act, 1950, noted that a convening order issued by a competent authority under Section 109 on a valid warrant, and the statutory appointment of court-martial members, satisfied legality requirements. The record also showed participation of the accused, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and consideration of a voluntary confessional statement and additional summary statement alongside oral evidence. In judicial review under Article 226, the writ court was confined to examining legality and fairness of the process and could not reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over findings of guilt. On that basis, interference with the conviction and sentence was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the general court-martial was convened and conducted in accordance with the Army Act, 1950, whether the writ court could reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of guilt, and whether the conviction and sentence required interference.

Analysis: The convening order was found to have been issued by a competent authority under Section 109 of the Army Act, 1950, on the basis of a valid warrant, and the members of the court-martial were held to have been appointed in compliance with the statute. The record showed that the appellant participated in the proceedings, was afforded opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and had made a voluntary confessional statement and an additional summary statement that were considered by the court-martial along with the oral evidence. The findings and sentence were also confirmed under the statutory scheme. In judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court was not entitled to sit in appeal over the court-martial findings or reappreciate evidence as if hearing a regular appeal; its scrutiny was confined to the legality and fairness of the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The court-martial was held to be validly convened and fairly conducted, and the High Court's interference with the conviction and sentence was found unjustified.

---