https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169727 A statutory discretion to choose trial by court-martial or ordinary criminal court was upheld as guided by relevant considerations such as discipline, the nature of the offence, service exigencies and the need for speedy trial, and because the choice remained subject to statutory control. No violation of Article 22(1) was shown, as the record did not establish a clear request for a civil lawyer of choice that was refused. The death sentence was not shown to breach the two-thirds concurrence requirement, since the official certificate supported compliance. The further remedy under Section 164 was also not denied, as no additional departmental review was required where the Central Government was the confirming authority. en-us Sat, 12 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 18:34:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169727 A statutory discretion to choose trial by court-martial or ordinary criminal court was upheld as guided by relevant considerations such as discipline, the nature of the offence, service exigencies and the need for speedy trial, and because the choice remained subject to statutory control. No violation of Article 22(1) was shown, as the record did not establish a clear request for a civil lawyer of choice that was refused. The death sentence was not shown to breach the two-thirds concurrence requirement, since the official certificate supported compliance. The further remedy under Section 164 was also not denied, as no additional departmental review was required where the Central Government was the confirming authority. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 12 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169727