LexPRADEEP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PRADEEP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 19, 2007 B [DR. ARinTPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, JJ.] Army Act, 1950: ss. 39-A and 116--Dismissal for absence without /eave-Acting Naik C in Army-Remaining absent without /eave-Withdrawal of rank and Summary Court-Martial-Punishment of dismissal awarded-Held: on facts, case is covered by rules relating to acting ranks contained in Army Instruction Nos. 84 and 88-Withdrawal of rank was on account of soldier's absence and was not punishment in that sense-Punishment of dismissal awarded by Summary D Court-Martial upheld. E s.3(v)-"Commanding Officer"-Officiating Commanding Officer convening Summary Court-Martial-Held, High Court was right in holding that Court-Martial was properly convened-Challenge to its composition was without any substance. Court-Martial-Nature and function of-Held, Court-Martial discharges judicial function and to a great extent is a court where provisions of Evidence Act are applicable-However, proceedings of a Court-Martial are not to be compared with the proceedings in a criminal court under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Court-Martial remains up to a significant degree, a F specialized part of overall mechanism by which military discipline is preserved. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 227--Court-Martial proceedings-Held: Are subject to judicial review by High Court under Article 226, but Court-Martial is not G subject to superintendence of High Court under Article 227-lf Court-Martial has been properly convened and there is no challenge to its composition antf :J· proceedings are in accordance with the procedure prescribed, courts would not interfere-Judicial review. H 358 • PRADEEP SINGH v. U.0.1. 359 -! Appellant, who was holding an acting rank of Naik in the Army, after A completing the Commando course, absented himself for a period of2Y. months. Thereafter when he reached his unit, his rank of Naik was withdrawn and he was directed to appear before Summary Court-Martial, which on concluding the hearing awarded him the punishment of dismissal. The respondent challenged the order in a writ petition before the High Court on the grounds B that the officiating Commanding Officer was not competent to convene the ~-1 Summary Court-Martial and, therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction; that he was not provided any legal assistance and as such, right -.I of hearing was denied to him; and that since he had been punished with removal of rank, he could not again be tried and punished on the same ground. The High Court having dismissed the writ petition, the soldier filed the present c appeal , Besides reiterating the contentions raised before the High Court, referring to Section 80 of the Army Act, 1950, it was contended for the appellant that removal of stripes amounted to punishment and, therefore, further action was not permissible. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, before respondent's absence from duty, he was in the acting rank of Naik. Therefore, the case is covered by rules relating to acting ranks contained in Army Instructions Nos. 84 and 88, and Section 80 of the Army Act, 1950 has no application in this regard. In this E view of the matter, withdrawal of ranks of Naik was on account of respondent's - absence and was not, therefore, punishment in that sense. [Paras 6, 4 and 7] (362-F; 364-G] 1.2. So far as the denial of legal assistance is concerned, it was noted that the appellant admitted that a Major was named as his friend to advise F him during the course of trial. His plea that he did not see the said officer during the court martial was found to be without substance. It was noted that in case he was not assisting him, he could have made a grievance before the Summary Court-Martial. That has been done. There was no substance in the • plea. [Para 3] (361-G; 362-A] G " 2.1. As regards challenge to legality Qf proceedings before the Court- Martial, though Court Martial proceedings are subject to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court-martial is not subject to the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. If a court-martial has been properly convened and there is H • 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1· A no challenge to its composition and the proceedings are in accordance with the procedure prescribed the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.