SOM DATT DATTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SOM DATT DATTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

There was no decision under section 125 of the Army Act to refer the case to civil courts; the proper authority decided upon Court-Martial. Rules 3 and 5 under section 549 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not attracted as the police investigation was not brought to the stage of a charge-sheet. There was no requirement to amend the charge under Army Rule 50(2) or to follow Rule 121(4) in these circumstances. There was no statutory or general law or rule of natural justice requiring reasons to be given for dismissals under sections 164 or 165 of the Army Act. The petition for a writ has no merit and must be dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Som Datt; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment of Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court Martial, Natural Justice Duty to Give Reasons, Application of Criminal Procedure Code to Military Personnel, Review and Confirmation of Court Martial Proceedings
Military Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Jurisdiction of Court Martial Natural Justice Duty to Give Reasons Application of Criminal Procedure Code to Military Personnel Review and Confirmation of Court Martial Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Som Datt

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment of Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court-Martial had jurisdiction to try the petitioner for offences under sections 304 and 149 IPC given the initial police involvement and the mandatory provisions of section 125 of the Army Act.
  2. 2 Whether Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules under section 549 of Criminal Procedure Code were attracted in this case.
  3. 3 Whether it was necessary for the Court-Martial to amend the charge under Army Rule 50(2) or follow the procedure under Rule 121(4).

Ratio Decidendi

There was no decision under section 125 of the Army Act to refer the case to civil courts; the proper authority decided upon Court-Martial. Rules 3 and 5 under section 549 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not attracted as the police investigation was not brought to the stage of a charge-sheet. There was no requirement to amend the charge under Army Rule 50(2) or to follow Rule 121(4) in these circumstances. There was no statutory or general law or rule of natural justice requiring reasons to be given for dismissals under sections 164 or 165 of the Army Act. The petition for a writ has no merit and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • No writ will issue; the orders of the Court-Martial, confirming authority, and Central Government stand.