https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194190 Rule 34 of the Army Rules, 1954 requires a ninety-six-hour interval between informing the accused of the charge and arraignment, so the accused has time to consider the charge, prepare a defence, and secure witnesses. Construed in its context and object, the provision was treated as mandatory rather than directory because it safeguards a substantive opportunity in court-martial proceedings with serious consequences such as imprisonment and dismissal from service. A guilty plea did not cure non-compliance, and a prejudice-based argument did not displace the rule's absolute character. Breach of the interval therefore invalidated the court-martial proceedings. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194190 Rule 34 of the Army Rules, 1954 requires a ninety-six-hour interval between informing the accused of the charge and arraignment, so the accused has time to consider the charge, prepare a defence, and secure witnesses. Construed in its context and object, the provision was treated as mandatory rather than directory because it safeguards a substantive opportunity in court-martial proceedings with serious consequences such as imprisonment and dismissal from service. A guilty plea did not cure non-compliance, and a prejudice-based argument did not displace the rule's absolute character. Breach of the interval therefore invalidated the court-martial proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194190