Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)Sheshdhar Badgaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021
The Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No.1259 of 2021 (Sheshdhar Badgaiya vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others) has held as under:
Section 22 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bhupendra Singh Bhatia vs State Of M.P. And Others on 6 December, 2006
11. In view of these judgments, it is clear that if in the order
dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-4) Section 92 is relied upon, that
does not deprive the authority to act in accordance with law beyond
the power given in Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, if said exercise
6
WRIT APPEAL No. 316 OF 2023
does not violate any provision of law. Secondly, sub-Section 4 of
Section 92 makes it clear that principles of natural justice are to be
followed in relation to actions taken under sub-Section 1 or 2 or 3
of Section 92. The direction to lodge the FIR is not covered under
sub-Section 1 or 2 or 3 of Section 92 of the Adhiniyam. Thus, sub-
Section 4 of Section 92 is of no assistance to the petitioner. The
order in Bhupendra Singh (Supra), in our considered view, does
not deal with the question of registration of FIR. Thus, this order is
of no help to the appellant.
Ram Sunder Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 July, 2007
In Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India [(2007) 13
SCC 255 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 603 : (2007) 9 Scale 197] it
was held: (SCC pp. 260-61, para 19)
"19. ... It appears that the competent authority has wrongly
quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact,
the order of discharge has to be read having been passed
under Section 22 of the Army Act.