https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160779 Concurrent jurisdiction under the Army Act allowed a court-martial to try offences arising from a service incident, and prior civil police involvement did not displace that choice where the competent military authority elected court-martial proceedings. The challenge based on Rule 50(2) and Rule 121(4) of the Army Rules failed because the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder was supported by the statutory power to find guilt for another offence proved on the facts. No express or implied duty to record reasons was found under sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act, so the confirming and appellate orders were not invalid for being non-speaking. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160779 Concurrent jurisdiction under the Army Act allowed a court-martial to try offences arising from a service incident, and prior civil police involvement did not displace that choice where the competent military authority elected court-martial proceedings. The challenge based on Rule 50(2) and Rule 121(4) of the Army Rules failed because the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder was supported by the statutory power to find guilt for another offence proved on the facts. No express or implied duty to record reasons was found under sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act, so the confirming and appellate orders were not invalid for being non-speaking. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160779