LexSAMRENDRA BEURA versus U.O.I. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 781 SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1. & OTHERS (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 78 of 2013) MAY 20, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Air Force Act, 1950: A B s. 164 - Sentence of imprisonment - Commencement of c - Pre-trial detention - Claim for setting if off against imprisonment - Held: s. 164 makes it clear that period of commencement of imprisonment is to be reckoned to commence on the day on which original proceedings were signed by Presiding Officer- Pre-trial detention cannot be set 0 off against sentence of imprisonment passed by court martial - Therefore, there is no illegal detention warranting issue of writ of habeas corpus - Keeping in view the amendments made in this regard in Army Act and Navy Act, Union of India may seriously consider to bring a similar amendment in Air E Force Act also - Legislation - Need for- Army Act, 1950 - s.169-A - Navy Act, 1957 - s.151- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 32 - Writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, as a Mechanical Transport Driver in the Indian Air Force, was found guilty of unauthorized F absence and was imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months uls 39(a) of the Air Force Act, 1950, apart from dismissal from service and reduction in rank. The order was affirmed by competent authority. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prayed for issue G of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release him as he continued in illegal detention because he had already spent one and half months in custody before the conviction was recorded by the court-martial. 781 H A B 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R. The question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the period of custody prior to the date of passing and signing of the order by the district court- martial is to be set off in respect of the sentence imposed." Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. On a plain reading of s.164 of the Air Force Act, 1950, it is clear that the period of imprisonment is to be reckoned to commence on the day on which the C original proceedings were signed by the Presiding Officer. In view of the enunciation of law by this Court, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the pre-trial detention cannot be set off against the sentence of imprisonment passed by the court-martial for the offence D u/s 39(a) which has been affirmed u/s 161(1) of the Act and the period of sentence shall commence from the date when the original proceeding was signed by the Presiding Officer. Thus, there is no illegal detention warranting issue of writ of habeas corpus. However, the E Competent Authority is directed to decide expeditiously the representation of the petitioner u/s 180(1) read with s.184 of the Act. [para 10, 12 and 13) [786-F; 788-D-F] Ajmer Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others 1987 (3) SCR 84 = 1987 (3) SCC 340; Bhuwaneshwar Singh F v. Union of India and Others 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 56 = 1993 (4) sec 327 - relied on. 2. Keeping in view the amendments in the Army Act and the Navy Act wherein provisions have been inserted G to set off the period of custody against imprisonment, regard being had to the purpose of the amendment and the totality of the circumstances, it is apt to recommend that Union of India seriously considers to bring an amendment in the Act so that the hardships faced by the H SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1. 783 persons convicted by the court-martial are avoided. [para A 14-16] [788-G-H; 790-B] Case Law Reference: 1987 (3) SCR 84 relied on 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 56 relied on para 10 para 11 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 78 of 2013. Merusagar Samantaray for the petitioner. Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Chandan Kumar, B.V. Bairam Das, R. Balasubramanian for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B c D DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee of Indian Air Force, who has been found guilty of the E offence under Section 39(a) of The Air Force Act, 1950 (for brevity "the Act") and has been awarded sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for· three months along with other punishments by order dated 15.3.2013 which has been affirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 161(1) of the said enactment, has prayed for issue of a writ o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.