CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF AND ORS. versus MAJOR S.P. CHADHA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 21-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MAJOR S.P. CHADHA 
DECEMBER 21, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND M.H. KANIA, J] 
B 
Army Act, 1950: Sections 3(ii), (vii), (viii) and (xviij, 117. 121, 
126 and 127. Army Instruction No. 1/6/74 (As amended by Army 
Instruction No. 2/76) and No. 81of1986. 
Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of jurisdiction) 
Rules, 1978: Rules 3 and 4. Army Officer-Civil offence-Disciplinary 
proceedings-Attachment-Reduction in Rank-Suspension-Trial-
Choice between criminal court and Court-Martial-Prohibition of 
second trial-Accused put on trial before General Court-Martial-
Dissolution of Court-Martial-Accused whether can be tried by an 
ordinary criminal court for the same offence-Validity of attachment, 
reduction in rank and suspension-Purpose of attachment-Explained. 
'Offence'-'Civil Offence'-'Court-Martial'-'Criminal Court'-
Meaning of. 
c 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 190( 1) (a) and 475. 
E 
The respondent, a Lt. Colonel, was alleged to have committed a 
civil offence. He was attached to another regiment for purposes of 
completing the disciplinary proceedings, made to relinquish bis actinil rank 
of Lt. Colonel, on the basis of Army Instruction No. 1/6/74 and 
suspended from service. The Army authorities opted for his trial by a 
F 
General Court-Martial under the Army Act, 1950. He filed a writ peti-
tion in the Supreme Court challenging action of the Army Authorities. 
However, the Court-Martial was dissolved under Section 117 of the 
Army Act and the respondent was handed over to civil authorities for 
trial of the same offence by a regular criminal court. Consequently, the 
Supreme Court dismissed his writ petition. 
G 
Pursuant to the handing over of the respondent to the· civil 
authorities, a complaint was filed against hinl before a Magistrate's 
court under Section 190(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court praying for restoration of his acting rank and for revocation of H 
691 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
his suspension. A Single Judge of the High Court ordered restoration of 
his acting rank by holding that since the authorities opted for his trial 
under the Army Act he could not be handed back to civil authorities for 
trial by an ordinary Criminal Court on the ground that trial by a 
Court-Martial was not feasible; and in view of his attachment to other 
regiment suspension should not have been resorted to. 
B 
c 
The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants against the 
decision of the Single Judge was summarily dismissed by a Division 
Bauch of the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, against the decision of the Division Bench 
of the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that (i) 
since the Court-Martial could not be completed against the respondent 
there was no legal bar to his trial by an ordinary criminal court; (ii) 
Until the trial was completed, the respondent was neither entitled to get 
back his rank nor have his suspension revoked. 
D 
On behalf of the respondent it was inter alia contended that since 
he was sent to a regular criminal court for trial his attachment could no 
longer survive. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD: 1. Section 127 of the Army Act, 1950 deals with successive 
trials by a criminal court and Court-Martial and sub-section (1) of 
section 127 specifically provides that a person convicted or acquitted by 
a Court-Martial may, with the previous sanction of the Central Govern-
ment, be tried again by a criminal court for the same offence or on the 
same facts. Under this section there is no general bar as such prohibit-
F 
ing successive trials by a Court-Martial and by a criminal court and 
perusal of the section shows that even where a person has been con-
victed or acquitted by a Court-Martial of the offence in question, he can 
be tried for the same offence by a criminal court, with the previous 
sanction of the Central Government . In the instant case the question of 
sanction of the Central Government never arose because the respondent 
G 
was neither convicted nor acquitted by the Court-Martial or dealt with 
under sections 80, 83, 84 or 85. [698H, 699A-C] 
2. Section 121 of the Army Act, deals with the prohibition of 
second trial. It has no application to the instant case as the respondent 
was neither acquitted nor convicted by the Court-martial or by a crimi-

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