AJMER SINGH ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 29-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJMER SINGH ETC. ETC. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 29, 1987 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 428-Applicability of to 
proceedings before the Court-Martial under the Army Act. 
-' 
Section 167 ol' the Army Act, 1950 provides that whenever a 
C person is sentenced by a Court-Martial to imprisonment, the term of 
his sentence shall be reckoned to commence on the day on which the 
original proceedings were signed by the Presiding Otlicer. Section 5 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that nothing contained in the 
Code shall affect any special or local law or any special jurisdiction or 
power or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law in, 
D force. Section 428 of the Code provides for set off of the period of 
detention undergone by an accusell person during the investigation, 
inquiry or trial against the term of imprisonment. Section 475 of the 
Code states that when any person is brought before a Magistrate and 
charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried either by a 
Court to which the Code applies or by a Court-Martial, such Magis-
E !rate shall in proper cases deliver him together with a statement of the 
offence, of which he is accused, to the commanding ot)icer of the 'unit to 
which he belongs. 
The appellants who were convicted by the General Court-
Martial for offences under the Army Act are undergoing their sentences 
F 
of imprisonment. Their petitions claiming grant of benefit of the provi-
sion for set off contained in s. 428 of the Code having been dismissed by 
the High Court they preferred these appeals by certificate under Article 
13-A of the Constitution of India. 
It was contended on their behalf that the Army Act is silent with 
G respect to the topic as to the date with effect from which the period of 
imprisonment covered by the sentence is to be reckoned, and that since 
s. 5 of the Code only lays down that nothing contained therein shall 
affect any special or local law, in the absence of any specific provision in 
the Army Act the provisions of the Code would get attracted. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court, 
8-l 
\ 
-
r 
AJMER SINGH v. U.O.I. 
85 
HELD: 1. The provision for set off contained in s. 428 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted in the case of per-
A 
sons convicted and sentenced by Court-Martial to undergo imprison-
ment. 91F] 
2. The Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act constitute 
special laws in force conferrin2 special jurisdiction and powers on B 
Courts-Martial. They embody a completely self-contained comprehen-
sive code specifying the various offences and prescribing the procedure 
for detention, custody, investigation and trial of the oftenders, the 
punishment to be awarded, confirmation and revision of the sentences 
imposed, the execution of such sentences and the grant of pardons, 
remissions and suspensions in respect of such sentences. Section 5 of the 
Code renders the provisions of the Code inapplicable in respect of all C 
matters covered by such special law. [87G-88B] 
3. Section 167 of the Army Act specifically lays down that 
whenever a person is sentenced by a Court-Martial to Imprisonment, 
the term of his sentence shall be reckoned to commence on the day on D 
which the original proceedings were signed by the Presiding Officer. 
In the !'ace of this categorical provision it cannot be said that the 
Army Act is silent with respect to the topic as to the date with effect 
from which the period of imprisonment covered by the sentence is to be 
reckoned.[88G; 89AB] 
E 
-
4. The distinction made ins. 475 of the Code between "trial by a 
i.-
Court to which this Code applies" and by a Court-Martial' conclu-
sively indicates that Parliament intended to treat the Court-Martial as 
a forum to the proceedings before which the provisions of the Code will 
--r 
have no application. [90F] 
5. There is also intrinsic indication contained in the very wording 
of s. 428 of the Code that it cannot have any application in respect of 
persons tried and sentenced by Court-Martial. There is no 'investiga-
tion' conducted by any police officer under the Code or by any person 
authorised by Magistrate in that behalf in the case of persons tried by 
F 
the Court-Martial. No inquiry is conducted under the Code by any G 
Magistrate or Court in respect of offences committed by persons which 
are tried by the Court-Martial. The trial is also not conducted by the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.