Officer, Commanding, ordered the matter to be dealt by the General Court Martial; on 15.5.1992, the Presiding Officer and four other officers were appointed. Petitioner ... objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court Martial was ruled out. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before this Court for issue of writ
Central Prison, Madras, in pursuance of the conviction by the District Court-Martial, Avadi, under section 64(e) of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred ... application to a person sentenced by a Court-Martial. Secondly, he states that the Court-Martial has in fact, before passing the sentence, taken into
same was transferred to the respondents, to be tried by the Court-martial under the Act. According to the respondents, the petitioners were duly informed ... well in advance about Summary Court-martial as contemplated under the Act. As per the Army Rules, 1954 (in short, "the Rules
which he would have to take up his trial before a Court Martial. The petnr's contention is that since the extended period ... offences for which he had to stand his trial before a Court Martial. The petnr. in his affidavit in support of the appln. states that
quantity of petrol. The appellant was thereafter tried by the Summary Court Martial held on 9th and 10th October, 1973, and was sentenced to three ... sentenced, the appellant challenged the order passed by the Court Martial reducing the rank, which led to his dismissal
Arokiasamy And Anr. vs Martial Margaret on 30 April, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR1982MAD93, AIR 1982 MADRAS 93, 1995 MADLW 307, 1981 TLNJ
Section 475 Cr.P.C
and the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules,
1978. Hence the custody of the accused was handed ... Section 3 & 4 of the Criminal Courts
and Court Martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules, 1978; but the above
provisions and rules are applicable only
Section 475 Cr.P.C
and the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules,
1978. Hence the custody of the accused was handed ... Section 3 & 4 of the Criminal Courts
and Court Martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules, 1978; but the above
provisions and rules are applicable only
property of the Crown, entrusted to him, shall, on conviction by court-martial, be punished with imprisonment, or with such less punishment ... this Act, be liable to be tried for the same by court-martial, and on conviction to be punished as prescribed thereunder. The term
respondent, namely Ex MCEAA-II Amit Dhull was tried before
the Court Martial for two offences under the Navy Act, 1957 [in short ... relates to knowingly making or
signing a false official document. The Court Martial conducted the proceedings
in consonance with the Navy
