9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to persons sentenced by Court-Martial under the Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against judgments of the High Court rejecting claims of appellants convicted by the General Court-Martial under the Army Act. The High Court granted certificates of fitness under Article 134A of the Constitution, leading to the appeals in the Supreme Court. 2. The central legal question in these appeals is the applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial under the Army Act, with similar implications under the Navy Act and Air Force Act. 3. The High Court decisions were based on the precedent set by an earlier ruling in Ram Labhaya Sharma v. Union of India, where it was held that Section 428 of the CrPC does not apply to convicts sentenced by Court-Martial. 4. Different High Courts have taken conflicting views on this issue. The High Courts of Madras, Delhi, and others have held that the benefit of Section 428 of the CrPC cannot be claimed by those convicted by Court-Martial. 5. However, a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court took a contrary view, allowing the benefit of Section 428 to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial. 6. An examination of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the Army Act, Navy Act, and Air Force Act reveals that Section 428 of the CrPC does not apply to persons convicted and sentenced by Court-Martial. 7. Section 5 of the CrPC specifies that in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, special laws like the Army Act prevail, governing the trial, conviction, and sentencing procedures under Court-Martial. 8. Detailed provisions in the Army Act cover all aspects from investigation to execution of sentences, making it clear that the CrPC does not apply to matters under Court-Martial jurisdiction. 9. Section 167 of the Army Act specifies the commencement of imprisonment sentences by Court-Martial, emphasizing that the Act's provisions supersede any potential application of Section 428 of the CrPC. 10. Section 475 of the CrPC further clarifies that the Code does not apply to proceedings before a Court-Martial, reinforcing the exclusion of CrPC provisions in such cases. 11. The wording of Section 428 of the CrPC itself indicates that it does not apply to persons tried and sentenced by Court-Martial, as it pertains to investigations and inquiries not conducted in Court-Martial proceedings. 12. The Supreme Court rejects the narrow interpretation of Section 5 of the CrPC and upholds the view that the Code does not apply to proceedings under special laws like the Army Act. 13. Given the absence of investigations and inquiries as defined in the CrPC in Court-Martial proceedings, the provision for set off in Section 428 of the CrPC is not applicable to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial. 14. The Supreme Court upholds the decisions of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana, Madras, and Delhi, affirming that the benefit of Section 428 of the CrPC cannot be claimed by those tried and sentenced by Court-Martial. 15. Decisions in favor of applying Section 428 by the High Court of Kerala and Calcutta High Court are deemed incorrect due to a lack of substantive reasoning and misinterpretation of relevant statutes. 16. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed as lacking merit based on the comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and precedents related to the applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to individuals sentenced by Court-Martial.
|
