Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
38. It is settled law that while examining the correctness of finding and
sentence of the Court Martial/Security Force Courts in exercise of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of
the High Court is limited to finding out whether there exists an error of
jurisdiction or is it a case of total lack of evidence. It is not open to the
High Court to re-evaluate the evidence on record or whether the evidence
W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 30 of 34
on record is sufficient to sustain the finding of the Court Martial/Security
Force Court or to substitute its opinion for that of the Court
Martial/Security Force Court. (See the decision of this Court in W.P.
(Crl.) No.93/1980 R.S. Ghalawat v. Union of India & Ors decided on
June 04, 1981).
Narender Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 February, 2009
36. A similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No.2029/1998 Const. Narender Kumar v. Union of India
& Ors decided on August 08, 2011.
Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 108 in The Border Security Force Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Another vs O.P. Bishnoi on 11 May, 2000
"Indeed an infraction of the Rule or an irregularity in
complying with the Rule 45, which does not cause any prejudice
to the accused, will not vitiate the subsequent proceedings
conducted at the stage of pre or post convening of the court and
W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 29 of 34
trial of the accused by Summary Security Force Court. The
reason is that the procedure prescribed by Rule 45 or 48, 49
and 51 are at a stage anterior to the trial by the Summary
Security Force Court. It is the order of the Summary Security
Force Court which results in conviction and punishment of the
accused which is material and not inconsequential infraction
and irregularity in the procedure prescribed in the Rules at
pre-trial stage. Similar view has been taken by the two Division
Benches of this Court in the case of ex-Const. Ashok Kumar
(supra) and Union of India v. O.P. Bishnoi (supra). This view is
also fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lt. Col.
Section 117 in The Border Security Force Rules, 1969 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Border Security Force Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
1