UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. IC-14827 MAJOR A. HUSSAIN
Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 218; 1997 INSC 793
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR , D.P. WADHWA
Judgment date:
Case summary
1997 INSC 793. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1997-12-08. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. IC-14827 MAJOR A. HUSSAIN. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S. C. R. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. IC-14827 MAJOR A. HUSSAIN DECEMBER 8, 1997 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, JJ. ] Constitution of India : Articles 226 and 227-Court ma1tial proceedings-Subject to judicial review under Article 226-But not to superintendence under Article 227-'"'/llo inte1fere11ce-Court martial properly convened and fair procedure followed. : Anny Rules '1954 : Rules 180 a11d 184-Accused not entitled to report-Cowt of i11qitity-Nature of proceedings-Not adversmial-Not part of pre-trial investigation. Rules 22, 23, 24 & Anny Order 70/84-f'rovisions relating to recording of summary evidence--Due compliance-No flagra11t violation of any procedure or provisiort-No prejudice caused to accused-Trial hot vitiated. - Rules 95, 96 and 105 : Cowt ma1tiat--- -that is also against the provisions of law.
It has been rightly said that Court-martial remains to a significant degree, a specialised part of overall mechanism by which the military discipline is preserved. It is for the special need for the armed forces that a person subject to Army Act is tried by court-martial for an act which is an offence under the Act. Court-martial discharges judicial function and to a great extent is a court where provisions of Evidence Act are applicable. A court-martial has also the same responsibility as any court to protect the rights of the accused charged before it and to follow the procedural safeguards. If one looks at the provisions of law relating to court-martial in the Army Act, the Army Rules, Defence Service Regulations and other Administrative Instructions of the Army, it is manifestly clear that the procedure prescribed is perhaps equally fair. if not more than a criminal trial provides to the accused.
When there is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction, it is unnecessary to examine if pre-trial investigation was adequate or not. Requirement of proper and adequate investigation is not jurisdictional and any violation thereof does not invalidate the court martial unless it is shown that accused has been prejudiced or a mandatory provisions has been violated. One may usefully refer to Rule 149 quoted above. The High Court should not allow the challenge to the validity of conviction and sentence of the accused when evidence is sufficient, court-martial has jurisdiction over the subject matter and has followed the prescribed procedure and is within its powers to award punishment. . - After ourselves examining the record of the court-martial, we find that the High Court completely misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He was given copies of all the relevant papers and also given '•-:' .
opportunity to inspect whatever record he wanted; allowed services of a civilian counsel; special advance was given to engage the services of civil counsel as requested by the respondent; there was no rule to give further advance to engage yet another civil counsel when first one withdrew; respondent was not hampered by paucity of funds as made out by him; no fault could be found with the convening officer if the respondent himself did not avail the services of a defending officer when provided; cross-ex-amination of important witnesses was deferred at the request of the respondent; and he had participated in the recording of Summary of Evidence without raising any objection. The General Court Martial took into s:on-sideration all the evidence and other materials produced before it; found •• the respondent guilty of the charge and sentenced him to be dismissed from service.
Pre-confirmation petition submitted by the respondent was rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff and findings and sentence of the General Court- Martial were confirmed by him. Thus, examining the case of the respondent from all angles which led the High Court to set aside. his conviction and sentence, we are satisfied that there was no irregularity or illegality and respondent was provided with reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the proceedings were fair. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. The appeal is allowed with costs. R. C. Appeal allowed. - !
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.