UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus EX-GNR AJEET SINGH

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 02-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 5 $.C.R. 620 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
B 
v. 
EX-GNR AJEET SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No.4465 of 2005) 
APRIL 2, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Army Act, 1950- ss.39(a) and 52(a) -Army Rules, 1951 
c - rr. 65, 72 and 79 - Court martial proceedings for absence 
without leave, for theft of ammunitions and for possession of 
counterfeit sea/ - Punishment of dismissal from service and 
7 years RI - Writ petition - High Court held that entire court 
martial proceedings stood vitiated as the same could not 
0 have been held for the offences which the delinquent had 
committed as a juvenile - Held: In view of the Juvenile Justice 
Act, the delinquent could not have been tried in Court Martial 
for the offences which he had committed as a juvenile - But 
each charge was in respect of a separate and distinct offence 
and each charge could have been tried separately -
Thus, 
E trial by Court Martial was partly valid - Valid part of the 
proceedings is required to be saved by applying the principle 
of severability of offences -
Hence, Court Martial 
Proceedings could not have been held invalid in entirety -
By joint trial of all the charges, no prejudice has been caused 
F to the accused, rather he has been benefited - Therefore, 
conviction recorded by the Court Martial is maintained, but 
in view of the facts of the case, sentence is reduced to 5 years 
RI - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000. 
G 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 - ss.6, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29 and 37 - Applicability of 
the Act~ Held: The Act being a special Act, has an overriding 
effect on any other statute - In the instant case, in Court 
H 
620 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. EX-GNR AJEET SINGH 621 
Martial proceedings, plea of juvenility was not raised at initial A 
stage,, hence not applicable - Army Rules, 1951 - r.51. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.464 - Misjoinder 
of charges - Affect of- Held: Misjoinder for charges is merely 
an irregularity which can be cured - Misjoinder of charges 8 
would not invalidate the proceedings unless a failure of justice 
has occasioned or the person aggrieved has been prejudiced. 
Court Martial - Nature of - Court Martial proceeding is 
substitute of a criminal trial - Hence the case coming against 
the order in Court Martial proceedings should be examined C 
in accordance with the principles/law applicable in a criminal 
case. 
Criminal Jurisprudence ~ There would be failure of justice 
not only by unjust conviction, but also by acquittal of the guilty o 
- In case substantial justice has been done, it should not be 
defeated, when pitted against technicalities - Justice should 
not be tampered with mercy. 
The respondent who was enrolled in Army, was 
charged for absence without leave on three occasions, E 
for committing theft of ammunitions on two occasions 
and for possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit 
forgery. Stolen articles were recovered at his instance. 
After General Court Martial Proceedings, he was awarded 
the punishment of dismissal from service and 7 years RI. 
F 
The sentence was confirmed by the Competent Authority. 
The respondent challenged the award of punishment on 
the ground that he was a juvenile at the time when he had 
committed some of the charged offences, hence in view 
of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, G 
2000, those offences could not have been tried with other 
offences which he had committed after attaining majority 
in a joint trial. 
High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
entire Court Martial (GCM) proceeding stood vitiated as 
GCM could not have been held for the offences committed 
as a juvenile. Appellant was given liberty to proceed 
against the respondent de novo for the offences, which 
he had committed after attaining majority. Hence the 
B present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 6 of Juvenile Justice (Protection 
of Children) Act, contains a non-obstante clause, giving 
C overriding effect on any other law for the time being in 
force. It also provides that the Juvenile Justice Board 
shall "have the power to deal exclusively" with all the 
proceedings, relating to juveniles under the Act, that are 
in conflict with other laws. Moreover, non-obstante 
D clauses contained in various provisions thereof, 
particularly Sections 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20, rende

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