{"id":170139,"date":"1968-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968"},"modified":"2017-11-17T21:42:47","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T16:12:47","slug":"som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","title":{"rendered":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 414, \t\t 1969 SCR (2) 177<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSOM DATT DATTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/09\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nMITTER, G.K.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  414\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 177\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC 500\t (14,20)\n R\t    1971 SC1120\t (18)\n R\t    1977 SC 567\t (20)\n RF\t    1986 SC1040\t (6)\n R\t    1986 SC1173\t (7)\n R\t    1990 SC1426\t (24)\n F\t    1990 SC1924\t (6,7,8,27,33,44)\n RF\t    1991 SC 564\t (5,6)\n\n\nACT:\nArmy  Act,  46\tof 1950, ss. 125,  126,\t 164  and  165-First\nInformation  Report of offences by Army Officer\t and  others\nmade   to   civil  police-Police   inspector   taking\tsome\npreliminary steps then stopping investigation at the request\nof  Army authorities-Area Commander  immediately  appointing\nCourt of Inquiry to investigate-After trial by Court Martial\naccused convicted of offences under ss. 304 and 149  I.P.C.-\nWhether\t Court\tMartial\t or  ordinary  criminal\t court\t had\njurisdiction   to try the case.-When Rules 3 and 5 of  Rules\nframed under s. 549 Cr. P.C. applicable.-If reasons required\nto  be given by G.O.C. while deciding petition under s.\t 164\nand  by\t the  Central  Government   while   deciding  appeal\nunder\ts. 165-Army Rules, 1954, ss. 50(2)  and\t 121(4)-When\nattracted.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner,  a  Second  Lieutenant\t in  the  army,\t was\ninvolved  in  a quarrel between two groups  of\tsoldiers  on\nSeptember  1,  1965  which led to  an  altercation  and\t the\nstabbing and death of a soldier.  On September 2, 1965,\t the\nmatter was reported to the Civil Police at the local  police\nstation.   The Inspector o.f Police inspected the place:  of\noccurrence on the same day, seized certain exhibits produced\nby an Army Officer, held an inquest on the dead body of\t the\ndeceased  soldier  and sent it\tfor  postmortem\t examination\nthrough\t a  police  constable.\tLater on the  same  day,  he\nstopped\t further investigation as the Army Officer  incharge\nwanted the case to be handled by the Military authorities.\n    On\tSeptember  2,  1965, a Court of\t Inquiry  under\t the\nprovisions  of Ch. VI of the Army Rules was ordered  by\t the\nCommander  for\tthe  area. After the Court  of\tInquiry\t had\nconcluded its  proceedings, a Court Martial was\t constituted\nby  an order dated  August 11. 1966, by the General  Officer\nCommanding  for\t the area to try the  petitioner  and  other\naccused persons.  The Court-Martial came to the finding that\nthe petitioner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting\nto murder, and that he was a member of an unlawful assembly;\nit  sentenced  him  to cashiering  and\tsix  years  rigorous\nimprisonment.  The petitioner filed a petition under section\n164  of\t the  Army  Act,  but  this  was  dismissed  by\t the\nconfirming  authority  and the finding and sentence  of\t the\nCourt Material was confirmed.  The petitioner's appeal under\nsection\t 165 of the Army Act to the Central  Government\t was\nalso dismissed.\n    In\tthe  present  petition\tunder  Article\t32  of\t the\nConstitution,  the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to\nquash  the   proceedings   of  the  Court-MartiaL   It\t was\ncontended on his  behalf  (i) that the\tCourt Martial had no\njurisdiction  to try and convict him of offences  under\t ss.\n304   'and  149\t I.P.C.\t having\t regard\t to  the   mandatory\nprovisions of s. 125 of the Army Act and having also  regard\nto the fact that the Army Officer incharge had in the  first\ninstance decided to hand over the. matter for  investigation\nto  the Civil Police; (ii) that no notice was given  by\t the\nCommanding  Officer to the Magistrate under Rule  5  of\t the\nRules  framed by the Central Government under s. 549 of\t the\nCriminal Procedure Code, that the petitioner should be tried\nby a Court-Martial; the Criminal Court alone\n178\ntherefore   had\t jurisdiction  under  Rule  3  to  try\t the\npetitioner  for the offence charged; (iii) that even if\t the\nCourt-Martial had jurisdiction, it could not give a  finding\nof  guilt  against the petitioner with\tregard\tto  culpable\nhomicide  not  amounting  to murder unless  the\t charge\t was\naltered and amended in accordance with sub-rule 2 of Rule 50\nof the Army Rules, 1954; the procedure contemplated by\tRule\n121(4)\t'of  the Army Rules was not followed by\t the  Court-\nMartial\t and  its  finding  must therefore  be\theld  to  be\ndefective; and (iv) that the orders of the Chief of the Army\nStaff confirming the proceedings of the Court-Martial  under\ns.  164\t of  the  Army Act and\tof  the\t Central  Government\ndismissing the petitioners appeal under s. 165 were  illegal\nsince no reasons had been given in support of  the decisions\ncontained in them.\nHELD: Dismissing the petition:\n    (i)\t Merely\t because the First  Information\t Report\t was\nlodged\twith  the  civil  police  on  September\t 2  and\t the\nInspector  of  Police  inspected the  place  of\t occurrence,\nseized\tcertain exhibits and held an inquest on the body  of\nthe deceased, it could not reasonably be said that there was\na decision of the competent military authority under s.\t 125\nof  the\t Army Act to hand over the inquiry to  the  criminal\ncourt.\tOn the other hand the action of the General  Officer\nCommanding the area, who was  the competent authority  under\ns.  125\t constituting the Court of Inquiry on  September  2,\n1965 indicates that there was a decision taken under s.\t 125\nthat the proceedings should be instituted before the  Court-\nMartial. [184 H]\n    (ii)  Rule\t3  of  the  Rules  framed  by  the   Central\nGovernment under s. 549 Criminal P.C. only applies to a case\nwhere  the  police has completed the investigation  and\t the\naccused is brought before the Magistrate after submission of\na charage-sheet.  The provisions of Rule 3 cannot be invoked\nin  the\t present case where the police\thad  merely  started\ninvestigation against a person subject to military law.\t The\nsituation  contemplated\t by Rule 5 had not  arisen  and\t the\nrequirements of that rule were not attracted.\tFurthermore,\nRegulation  527 of the Defence Services\t Regulations  itself\nprovides  that\tin  cases of  unnatural\t death,\t information\nshould be given under s. 174 Criminal Procedure Code to\t the\ncivil  authorities.   The  action of the  Army\tOfficer\t  in\nsending\t  information  to  the civil police  was  merely  in\naccordance   with   the\t provisions   of   this\t  particular\nRegulation. [187 D]\n    (iii) There Was no necessity for amending the charge  by\nthe  Court  Martial under Rule 50(2) because  that  sub-rule\nonly   relates\tto  an\talteration  of\tcharge\tbefore\t the\nexamination of\twitnesses.  The\t Court Martial had also\t not\ncontravened the provisions of Rule 121(4) because that\tsub-\nrule  was  not\tattracted  in  the  present  case.   On\t the\ncontrary, the finding of the Court-Martial was justified  in\nview of\t the  language of s. 139(6) of the Army Act. [188 H]\n    (iv) There is no express obligation imposed by s. 164 or\nby  s.\t165 of the Army Act on the confirming  authority  or\nupon  the Central Government to give reasons in\t support  of\nits  decision  to  confirm the\tproceedings  of\t the  Court-\nMartial.   No other Section of the Act or any Rule had\tbeen\nshown from which a necessary implication could be drawn that\nsuch a duty is cast upon the Central Government or upon\t the\nconfirming  authority.\tFurthermore, there was no  force  in\nthe  contention that there is any general principle  or\t any\nrule  of  natural justice that a statutory  tribunal  should\nalways\tand  in every case give reasons in  support  of\t its\ndecision. [190 H; 192 A-B]\n179\n  Rex.\tv.  Northumberland  Compensation  Appeal   Tribunal,\n[1952]\t1   K.B. 338, considered.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 118 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
      Petition\tunder Art. 32 of the Constitution  of  India
\nfor enforcement of the fundamental rights.
\nB. Datta, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B.D. Sharma and\tR.H.
\nDhebar, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      Ramaswami, J. In this case the petitioner has obtained
\na rule from tiffs Court asking the respondents to show cause
\nwhy a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be  issued
\nunder Art 32 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing
\nthe  proceedings  before the General Court Martial  No.\t JAG
\n26\/66-67\/AA  of 1965 from the Judge Advocate  General  (Army
\nbranch), Army Headquarters whereby the petitioner was  found
\nguilty\tof  charges under s. 304 and s. 149  of\t the  Indian
\nPenal  Code  and sentenced to a period of 6  years  rigorous
\nimprisonment   and  cashiering. Cause has been shown by\t the
\nAttorney-General  on behalf of the Union of India and  other
\nrespondents  to\t whom notice of the rule was ordered  to  be
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
      The  petitioner was commissioned in the  Indian\tArmy
\nin February, 1964 and was posted as Second Lt.\t(E.C.-55461)
\nand  was attached to 397 Engineering Construction  Equipment
\nCompany\t in December, 1964.  In August, 1965 the  petitioner
\nwas posted as a Quarter Master and was transferred to Madras
\nalong\twith  the  Company.   It  appears  that\t  Wednesday,
\nSeptember 1, 1965 was to be celebrated as the Raising Day of
\nthe  Unit when Games and Sports,  entertainment\t  and\tBara
\nKhana\t(evening  dinner)  were to  be\tarranged.   In\tthis
\ncelebration, all officers and other ranks of the Unit had to
\ntake  some part and a number of other Army officers were  to
\nbe  received and entertained on behalf of the Unit.  At\t the
\nvariety\t entertainment Punjabis and Garhwalis took part\t and
\neach  party  was given free one bottle of rum.\t But  it  is
\nalleged\t that the Purbias were not given an  opportunity  to
\nput  up their show and were not given free a bottle of\trum.
\nThey  were  consequently  aggrieved for\t this  reason.\t The
\nvariety\t entertainment concluded at about 1900 hours at\t the
\nend  of which rum was issued to the jawans.  The bara  khana
\nwas to commence at 2000 hours.\tAs there was a delay in\t the
\nassembly  of the men at the dining hall, Maj.  Agarwal\tsent
\nthe petitioner to the lines   to find out the cause for\t the
\ndelay and to get the men quickly. The petitioner went to the
\nlines  and  it\tis  alleged that  the  accused\tused  filthy
\nlanguage  while addressing the men.  Some  of\tthe  Purbias
\nincluding the deceased Spr. Bishwanath Singh protested
\n180<\/span>
\nagainst\t the  use of such language.  Though  the  petitioner
\nexpressed regret, the men were not satisfied.  A few of\t the
\nSikh  jawans, including some of the accused, sided with\t the
\npetitioner  and there was a heated argument between the\t two
\ngroups on their way to the dining hall.\t The bara khana\t was
\nserved\tin  two sittings.  The petitioner did not  join\t the
\nfirst sitting but joined the second sitting which  consisted
\nof about 30 to 40 men. The quarrel which started between the
\ntwo  groups  earlier was continued in the dining  hall.\t The
\nlights\twent off for a few minutes and when the lights\tcame
\non,  it\t was  observed that a scuffle was going\t on  in\t the
\nmiddle\tof  the hall between the petitioner and\t other\tSikh
\njawans\tand  the deceased. As the  scuffle  progressed,\t the
\ndeceased  was surrounded by petitioner No. 1 and  the  other
\naccused\t persons  and the group moved  towards\tthe  service
\ncounter.   The\tlights went off for a second time.   In\t the
\ndarkness tables, benches and plates were hurled about.\tMost
\nof  the men ran out of the dining hall.\t It is alleged\tthat
\naccused No. 6 was seen stabbing with a knife Spr. Bishwanath
\nSingh  and the latter slumped to the ground. Accused  No.  3
\nhit  him with a soot rake.  When the lights came on after  a
\nfew minutes, the petitioner and the other accused were found
\nstanding  near\tthe place where Spr.  Bishwanath  Singh\t had
\nfallen. Consequently, Maj. Agarwal arrived at the scene\t and
\ntook  Spr.  Bishwanath Singh to. the MI room  where  he\t was
\nfound  dead by Maj. Koley, the Medical Officer.\t It  appears
\nthat on September 2, 1965 at about 0400 hours the matter was
\nreported to the Civil Police by Second Lt. F.D.A.  Jesudian.
\nA  case\t under s. 302, Indian Penal Code was  registered  as
\ncrime  No.  726\/1965  at Pallavaran Police Station,  Madras.
\nSri  Bashyam,\tInspector  of Police reached  the  place  of
\noccurrence at 0430 hours on the same date.  He inspected the
\ndining\thall  and seized certain exhibits produced  by\tMaj.
\nAgarwal.   He  also  held inquest on the  deadbody  of\tSpr.
\nBishwanath  Singh  and\tsent the  dead-body  for  postmortem
\nexamination  to.  the  mortuary,  Madras  General   Hospital
\nthrough\t Police\t Constable No. 1407, Ratnam.   He  sent\t the
\nexhibits  seized to the State Forensic\tScience\t Laboratory,
\nMadras for chemical examination.  At 1330 hours on the\tsame
\ndate  Sri Bashyam stopped further investigations as Lt. Col.
\nBajpai\twanted\tthe  case  to be  handled  by  the  Military
\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tSeptember  2, 1965, a Court of\tEnquiry_  under\t the
\nprovisions  of Ch. VI. of the Army Rules was ordered by\t the
\nCommander,  Mysore and Kerala Sub-Area. After the  Court  of
\nInquiry\t had concluded the proceedings, a Court Martial\t was
\nconstituted  by\t an order, dated August 11, 1966  by  Major-
\nGeneral.  S.J.\tSathe, General Officer\tCommanding,  Madras,
\nMysore\tand  Kerala  area to try the  petitioner  and  other
\naccused\t persons. The Court Martial assembled on August\t 18,
\n1966  and  conducted its proceedings on\t several  subsequent
\ndates.\tIn support of the case of the prosecu-\n<\/p>\n
181<\/span><\/p>\n
tion 30 witnesses were examined.  At the Court Martial, the
\ndefended   by  an  Advocate  of\t the  Madras   High   Court,
\npetitioner  was\t Sri  Natarajan and he was  also  as\t  by
\nassisted   a friend of the accused Major T.B. Narayanan.  At
\nthe trial the Counsel for the petitioner cross-examined\t the
\nwitnesses  for\tthe prosecution and  after  the\t prosecution
\nevidence was concluded, the petitioner said that he did\t not
\nintend to call any defence witnesses.  The petitioner,\thow-
\never,  submitted  a  written statement.\t  He  was  also\t put
\nvarious questions by the Court Martial to which he  replied.
\nAfter  the Counsel for the defence was heard and  after\t the
\nJudge-Advocate summed up the case, the Court Martial came to
\nthe  finding  that  the petitioner was\tguilty\tof  culpable
\nhomicide not amounting to murder and that he was a member of
\nan  unlawful  assembly and the petitioner was  sentenced  to
\ncashiering  and 6 years rigorous imprisonment.\tAgainst\t the
\ndecision  of  the  Court  Martial  the\tpetitioner  field  a
\npetition  under s. 164 of the Army Act but the petition\t was
\ndismissed  by the confirming authority and the\tfinding\t and
\nsentence  by the Court Martial was confirmed so far  as\t the
\npetitioner was concerned. The petitioner thereafter filed an
\nappeal\tunder  s.  165\tof  the\t Army  Act  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment but the appeal was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The first question to be considered in this case is  whether
\nthe  Court Martial had jurisdiction to try and\tconvict\t the
\npetitioner  of\tthe offences under ss. 304 and\t149,  Indian
\nPenal Code.  It was contended by Mr. Dutta on behalf of\t the
\npetitioner that the Court Martial had no jurisdiction having
\nregard\tto the mandatory provisions contained in s.  125  of
\nthe  Army Act and having also regard to the fact  that\tMaj.
\nAgarwal had, in the first instance, decided to hand over the
\nmatter\tfor investigations to the Civil Police. In order  to
\ntest  whether  this  argument is valid it  is  necessary  to
\nscrutinize   the  provisions  of  the  Army  Act   in\tsome
\ndetail.Section\t2  of the Army Act, 1950 (Act 46  of  1950),
\nhereinafter  called the ‘Army Act’, describes the  different
\ncategories  of army  personnel who are subject to  the\tArmy
\nAct.  Section 3 (ii) defines a “civil offence” to  mean\t “an
\noffence\t which is triable by a criminal\t court”;  s.  3(vii)
\ndefines a “court-martial” to mean “a court” to mean “a court
\nof ordinary criminal justice in any part of India other that
\nthe  state  of\tJammu and Kashmir”  ;  s.  3(xvii)   defines
\n“offence” to mean “any act or omission punishable under this
\nact  and includes a civil offence”; and s. 3 (xxv)  declares
\nthat “all words and expressions used but not defined in this
\nAct and defined in the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed  to
\nhave the meanings assigned to them in that code.” chapter is
\n“Offences”.  As we have already noticed, the word  “offence”
\nis  defined to mean not only any act or omission  punishable
\nunder the Army Act, but also a
\n182<\/span>
\ncivil  offence.\t  Sections  34 to  68  define  the  offences
\nagainst\t the Act triable by court-martial and also  indicate
\nthe punishments for the said offences.\tSection 69 states as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “69.   Subject  to\tthe  provisions\t  of
\n\t      sect.ion\t70, any person subject to  this\t Act
\n\t      who  at any place in or beyond  India  commits
\n\t      any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty
\n\t      of an offence against this Act and, if charged
\n\t      therewith under this section, shall be  liable
\n\t      to  be  tried  by\t a  court-martial  and,\t  on
\n\t      conviction,  be  punishable  as follows,\tthat
\n\t      is to say,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (a) if the offence is one which would be
\n\t      punishable  under\t any law in force  in  India
\n\t      with death or with transportation, he shall be
\n\t      liable  to suffer any punishment,\t other\tthan
\n\t      whipping,\t assigned  for the offence,  by\t the
\n\t      aforesaid\t law and such less punishment as  is
\n\t      in this Act mentioned; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (b)\t in  any  other case,  he  shall  be
\n\t      liable  to suffer any punishment,\t other\tthan
\n\t      whipping, assigned for the offence by the\t law
\n\t      in force in India, or imprisonment for a\tterm
\n\t      which may extend to seven years, or such\tless
\n\t      punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”
\n\t      Section 70 provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “A\tperson\tsubject\t to  this   Act\t who
\n\t      commits  an offence of murder against a person
\n\t      not  subject to military, naval or  air  force
\n\t      law, or of culpable homicide not amounting  to
\n\t      murder  against  such a person or of  rape  in
\n\t      relation to such a person, shall not be deemed
\n\t      to  be guilty of an offence against  this\t Act
\n\t      and  shall  not be tried by  a  court-martial,
\n\t      unless he commits any of the said offences–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) while on active service, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) at any place outside India, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (c) at a frontier post  specified by\t the
\n\t      Central  Government  by notification  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t Explanation.–In   this  section   and\t  in
\n\t      section\t69,   “India” does not\tinclude\t the
\n\t      State  of\t Jammu\t  and\tKashmir.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Shortly\t stated\t ,  under  this\t Chapter  there\t are   three
\ncategories of offences, namely, (1 ) offences committed by a
\nperson\tsubject\t to the Act triable by\ta  court-martial  in
\nrespect\t  whereof  specific punishments have been  assigned;
\n(2) civil offences committed by the said person at any place
\nin or beyond India, but deemed to
\n183<\/span>
\nbe offences committed under the Act and, if charged under s.
\n69     of  the\tAct, triable by\t a  court-martial;  and\t (3)
\noffences  of murder and culpable homicide not  amounting  to
\nmurder\tor  rape committed by a person subject\tto  the\t Act
\nagainst\t a person not subject to the military law.   Subject
\nto a few exceptions, they are not triable by  court-martial,
\nbut are triable only by ordinary criminal courts.  The legal
\nposition therefore is that when an offence is  for the first
\ntime  created by the Army Act, such as those created by\t ss.
\n34,  35, 36, 37 etc., it would be exclusively triable  by  a
\ncourt-martial; but where a civil offence is also an  offence
\nunder the Act or deemed to be an offence under the Act, both
\nan ordinary criminal court as well as a court-martial  would
\nhave jurisdiction to try the person committing the  offence.
\nSuch  a\t situation is visualized and provision is  made\t for
\nresolving the conflict under ss. 125 and 126 of the Army Act
\nwhich state:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “125.  When  a  criminal  court  and  a
\n\t      court-martial   have  each   jurisdiction\t  in
\n\t      respect  of  an offence, it shall\t be  in\t the
\n\t      discretion of the officer commanding the army,
\n\t      army corps, division or independent brigade in
\n\t      which  the accused person is serving  or\tsuch
\n\t      other  officer as may be prescribed to  decide
\n\t      before  which court the proceedings  shall  be
\n\t      instituted, and, if that officer decides\tthat
\n\t      they  should  be instituted  before  a  court-
\n\t      martial,\tto  direct that the  accused  person
\n\t      shall be detained in military  custody.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     126. (1 ) When a criminal court  having
\n\t      jurisdiction  is of opinion  that\t proceedings
\n\t      shall  be instituted before itself in  respect
\n\t      of  any  alleged offence, it may,\t by  written
\n\t      notice,  require\tthe officer referred  to  in
\n\t      section  125 at his option, either to  deliver
\n\t      over the offender to the nearest magistrate to
\n\t      be  proceeded against according to law, or  to
\n\t      postpone\tproceedings pending a  reference  to
\n\t      the Central Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     (2) In every such case the said officer
\n\t      shall  either  deliver over  the\toffender  in
\n\t      compliance  with\tthe  requisition  or   shall
\n\t      forthwith\t refer the question as to the  court
\n\t      before   which  the  proceedings\tare  to\t  be
\n\t      instituted   for\tthe  determination  of\t the
\n\t      Central  Government,  whose  order  upon\tsuch
\n\t      reference shall be final.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 125 presupposes that in respect of an offence both a
\ncriminal  court\t as  well  as  a  court-martial\t have\teach
\nconcurrent  jurisdiction.  Such a situation can arise  in  a
\ncase  of an act or omission punishable both under  the\tArmy
\nAct aS well as under any law in force in India.\t It may also
\narise  in  the case of an offence deemed to  be\t an  offence
\nunder the Army Act.  Under the -scheme of the two  sections,
\nin the first instance, it is left to the
\n184<\/span>
\ndiscretion  of\tthe officer mentioned in s.  125  to  decide
\nbefore which court the proceedings shall be instituted, and,
\nif the officer decides that they should be instituted before
\na  court-martial,  the accused person is to be\tdetained  in
\nmilitary custody; but if a criminal court is of opinion that
\nthe said offence shall be tried before itself, it may  issue
\nthe requisite notice under s. 126 either to deliver over the
\noffender  to  the  nearest magistrate  or  to  postpone\t the
\nproceedings  pending a reference to the Central\t Government.
\nOn  receipt of the said requisition, the officer may  either
\ndeliver\t .over the offender to the said court or  refer\t the
\nquestion  of  proper  court for\t the  determination  of\t the
\nCentral\t Government  whose order shall be final.  These\t two
\nsections of the Army Act provide a satisfactory machinery to
\nresolve\t the conflict of jurisdiction, having regard to\t the
\nexigencies of the situation in any particular case.
\n    In\tthe  present  case,  we are  unable  to\t accept\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe  petitioner\t that  merely  because\tMaj.
\nAgarwal\t had  directed\tthat the  First\t Information  Report
\nshould be lodged with  the  Civil Police through Second\t Lt.
\nJesudian, it means that the competent authority under s. 125
\nof  the\t Army Act had exercised its discretion\tand  decided
\nthat  the  proceedings\tshould\tbe  instituted\tbefore\t the
\ncriminal court.\t The reason is that Maj. Agarwal was not the
\ncompetent authority under s. 125 of the Army Act to exercise
\nthe choice under that section.\tThe competent authority\t was
\nthe  General Officer Commanding, Madras, Mysore\t and  Kerala
\nArea  and  that authority had decided on September  2,\t1965
\nthat  the matter should be tried by a Court-Martial and\t not
\nby  the\t Criminal  Court.  On the  same\t date,\tthe  General
\nOfficer Commanding, Madras, Mysore & Kerala Area had ordered
\nthe  constitution of the Court-Martial under Ch. VI  of\t the
\nArmy  Rules to investigate into the case of  the  petitioner
\nand  the other\taccused\t persons. There was  admittedly\t no.
\ndirection  by  the Commander of that area to hand  over\t the
\nproceedings  to\t the Criminal Court.  It is true  that\tMaj.
\nAgarwal\t had directed a report to be lodged with  the  Civil
\nPolice\tat 4.00 a.m. on September 2, 1965.  It is also\ttrue
\nthat  Sri  Bashyam, Inspector of Police\t had  inspected\t the
\nplace  of  occurrence,\tseized\tcertain\t exhibits  and\theld
\ninquest\t of  the  deadbody of Spr.  Bishwanath\tSingh.\t Sri
\nBashyam\t has admitted that he stopped investigations on\t the
\nsame  date as directed by the military authorities.   Merely
\nbecause\t Sri Bashyam conducted the inquest of the  dead-body
\nof  Spr.  Bishwanath  Singh or\tbecause\t he  seized  certain
\nexhibits  and  sent  them  to  the  State  Forensic  Science
\nLaboratory, Madras for chemical examination,  it  cannot  be
\nreasonably argued that there was a decision of the competent
\nmilitary authority under s. 125 of the Army Act for  handing
\nover the inquiry to the Criminal Court.\t On the other  hand,
\nthe action of the General Officer Commanding in constituting
\nthe Court of
\n185<\/span>
\nInquiry\t on  September 2, 1965 indicates that  there  was  a
\ndecision  taken\t under\ts.  125 of the\tArmy  Act  that\t the
\nproceedings should be instituted before the Court-Martial.
\n    The\t second branch of the argument of the petitioner  is
\nbased  upon  s.\t 549 of the Criminal  Procedure\t Code  which
\nstates:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   “(1)\t The  Central  Government  may\tmake
\n\t      rules  consistent with this Code and the\tArmy
\n\t      Act,  the Naval Discipline Act and the  Indian
\n\t      Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, and the Air Force
\n\t      Act and any similar law for the time being  in
\n\t      force as to the cases in which persons subject
\n\t      to military, naval or air force law, shall  be
\n\t      tried  by a Court to which this Code  applies,
\n\t      or  by Court martial, and when any  person  is
\n\t      brought  before  a Magistrate and charged with
\n\t      an offence for which he is liable, to be tried
\n\t      either  by a Court to which this code  applies
\n\t      or  by a Court-martial, such Magistrate  shall
\n\t      have regard to such rules, and shall in proper
\n\t      cases  deliver him, together with a  statement
\n\t      of the offence of which he is accused, to\t the
\n\t      commanding  officer  of the  regiment,  corps,
\n\t      ship or detachment, to which he belongs, or to
\n\t      the   commanding\t officer  of   the   nearest
\n\t      military,\t naval or air force station, as\t the
\n\t      case may be, for the purpose of being tried by
\n\t      Court-martial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Central Government has made rules in exercise of  powers
\nconferred  on  it  under  this\tsection.   The\tRules\twere
\npublished  at  p. 690 in s. 3 of Part H of  the\t Gazette  of
\nIndia, dated April 26, 1962, under Ministry of Home Affairs,
\nS.R.O. 709, dated April 17, 1962. Rules 3, 4, 5 and 8 are to
\nthe following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “3. Where a person subject to military,
\n\t      naval  or Air Force law is brought  before   a
\n\t      Magistrate   and charged with an\toffence\t for
\n\t      which  he\t is liable to be tried by  a  court-
\n\t      martial, such Magistrate shall not proceed  to
\n\t      try  such\t person or to issue orders  for\t his
\n\t      case to be referred to a Bench, or to  inquire
\n\t      with a view to his commitment for trial by the
\n\t      Court  of Sessions or the High Court for\t‘any
\n\t      offence friable by such Court, unless\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (a)  he is of opinion, for reasons  to  be
\n\t      recorded,\t that he should so  proceed  without
\n\t      being  moved  thereto by\tcompetent  military,
\n\t      naval or Air Force authority, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) he is moved thereto by such authority.”
\n\t\t     “4. Before proceeding under clause\t (a)
\n\t      of  rule 3 the Magistrate shall  give  written
\n\t      notice to the Com-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sup C1\/69–13
\n186<\/span>
\nmanding\t Officer  of the accused and until the expiry  of  a
\nperiod\tof seven days from the date of the service  of\tsuch
\nnotice he shall not-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (a)  convict  or acquit the  accused  under
\n\t      sections\t243, 245, 247 or 248 of the Code  of
\n\t      Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), or\thear
\n\t      him  in his defence under section 244  of\t the
\n\t      said Code; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (b) frame in writing a charge against\t the
\n\t      accused under section 254 of the said Code; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (c)  make an order committing the  accused
\n\t      for trial by the High Court or the  Court\t  of
\n\t      Sessions under section 213 of the said Code.”
\n\t\t    “5.\t Where\twithin the period  of  seven
\n\t      days  mentioned  in  rule 4, or  at  any\ttime
\n\t      thereafter   before  the Magistrate  has\tdone
\n\t      any act  or  issued  any\torder referred to in
\n\t      that  rule,  the\tCommanding  Officer  of\t the
\n\t      accused or competent military, naval  or\t Air
\n\t      Force  authority,\t as the case may  be,  gives
\n\t      notice  to  the Magistrate that in the opinion
\n\t      of such authority, the accused should be tried
\n\t      by a court-martial, the Magistrate shall\tstay
\n\t      proceedings and if the accused is in his power
\n\t      or under his control, shall deliver him,\twith
\n\t      the statement prescribed in sub-section (1) of
\n\t      section 549 of the said Code to the  authority
\n\t      specified in the said sub-section.”
\n\t\t    “8.\t Notwithstanding  anything  in\t the
\n\t      foregoing rules, where it comes to the  notice
\n\t      of  a  Magistrate\t that a\t person\t subject  to
\n\t      military, naval or Air Force law has committed
\n\t      an  offence, proceedings in respect  of  which
\n\t      ought to be instituted before him and that the
\n\t      presence\tof  such person cannot\tbe  procured
\n\t      unless  through military, naval or  Air  Force
\n\t      authorities,  the Magistrate may by a  written
\n\t      notice require the Commanding Officer of\tsuch
\n\t      person  either  to deliver such  person  to  a
\n\t      Magistrate to be named in the said notice\t for
\n\t      being  proceeded against according to law,  or
\n\t      to stay  the  proceedings against such  person
\n\t      before the court-martial, if since instituted,
\n\t      and  to  make a  reference  to   the   Central
\n\t      Government  for determination as to the  Court
\n\t      before\twhich\t proceedings\tshould\t  be
\n\t      instituted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was
\nno notice given by the Commanding Officer to the  Magistrate
\nunder Rule 5 that the petitioner should be tried by a Court-
\nMartial and hence the criminal court alone had\tjurisdiction
\nunder Rule 3 to conduct proceedings against the\t  petitioner
\nfor  the  offences charged. In our opinion, the argument  on
\nbehalf of the petitioner
\n187<\/span>
\nis   mis-conceived.   The  rules  framed  by   the   Central
\nGovernment under s. 549 of the Criminal Procedure Code apply
\nto a case where the proceedings against the petitioner\thave
\nalready been instituted in an ordinary criminal court having
\njurisdiction to try the matter and not at a stage where such
\nproceedings have not been instituted.  it is clear from\t the
\naffidavits filed in the present case that the petitioner was
\nnot  brought  before  the Magistrate and  charged  with\t the
\noffences  for which he was liable to be tried by the  Court-
\nMartial\t within the meaning of Rule 3 and so  the  situation
\ncontemplated  by Rule 5 has not arisen and the\trequirements
\nof  that rule are therefore not attracted.  It\twas  pointed
\nout by Mr. Dutta that after the First Information Report was
\nlodged\tat Pallavaran police station a copy  thereof  should
\nhave  been sent to the Magistrate.  But that does  not\tmean
\nthat  the petitioner “was brought before the Magistrate\t and
\ncharged\t with  the  offences” within the meaning of Rule  3.
\nIt is manifest that Rule 3 ,only applies to a case where the
\npolice\thad  completed\tinvestigation  and  the\t accused  is
\nbrought before the Magistrate after submission of a  charge-
\nsheet.\t The provisions of this rule cannot be invoked in  a
\ncase  where  the  police had  merely  started  investigation
\nagainst\t a person subject to. military, naval or  air  force
\nlaw.  With regard to the holding of the inquest of the dead-
\nbody  of  Spr. Bishwanath Singh it was pointed\tout  by\t the
\nAttorney-General that Regulation 527 of the Defence Services
\nRegulations  has itself provided that in cases of  unnatural
\ndeath  that  is\t death due to  suicide,\t violence  or  under
\nsuspicious  circumstances information should be given  under
\ns.  174, Criminal Procedure Code to the\t Civil\tauthorities,
\nand  the conduct of Maj. Agarwal in sending  information  to
\nthe   Civil  Police  was  merely  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of this particular regulation.  For these reasons
\nwe  hold that Counsel for the petitioner is unable  to\tmake
\ngood his argument on this aspect of the case.
\n    We\tproceed to consider the next argument  presented  on
\nbehalf of the petitioner, namely, that even if the  Military
\nCourt-Martial had jurisdiction, it could not give a  finding
\nof  guilt  against the petitioner with\tregard\tto  culpable
\nhomicide   not\tamounting  to  murder  unless\tthe   charge
\nwas  .altered and amended in accordance with sub-rule  2  of
\nRule  50 of the Army Rules, 1954. It was also  contended  on
\nbehalf of the petitioner that the procedure contemplated  by
\nRule 121(4) of the Army Rules was not followed by the Court-
\nMartial and the finding of the Court-Martial  must therefore
\nbe  held  to  be defective.  In our  opinion,  there  is  no
\nwarrant or justification for this argument since rules 50(2)
\nand 121 (4) have no application to the present case.   Rules
\n50 and 121 provide as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “50. Amendment of charge.–( 1 ) At\t\t any  time
\nduring the trial, if it appears to the court that there is
\n188<\/span>
\n\t\tany  mistake in the name or  description  of
\n\t      the  accused   in the charge-sheet, the  court
\n\t      may  amend  the chargesheet so as\t to  correct
\n\t      that  mistake.   (2) If, on the trial  of\t any
\n\t      charge,  it appears to the  court at any\ttime
\n\t      before it has begun to examine the  witnesses,
\n\t      that in the interests of justice any  addition
\n\t      to,  commission  from, or alteration  in,\t the
\n\t      charge is required,  it may report its opinion
\n\t      to the convening authority, and  may  adjourn,
\n\t      and the convening authority may either  direct
\n\t      the  new trial to be commenced, or  amend\t the
\n\t      charge,  and order the trial to  proceed\twith
\n\t      such  amended  charge after due notice to\t the
\n\t      accused.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“121.  Form and record of finding.–(1)\t The
\n\t      finding on every charge upon which the accused
\n\t      is  arraigned   shall be recorded, and  except
\n\t      as  mentioned  in these  rules,  such  finding
\n\t      shall  be\t recorded simply as  a\tfinding\t  of
\n\t      “Guilty” or of “Not guilty”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (2)  When  the  court\t is  of\t opinion  as
\n\t      regards  any  charge that the facts proved  do
\n\t      not  disclose  the  offence   charged  or\t any
\n\t      offence  of  which  he might  under  the\t Act
\n\t      legally be found guilty on the charge as laid,
\n\t      the   court shall acquit the accused  of\tthat
\n\t      charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (3)  When  the  court\t is  of\t opinion  as
\n\t      regards any  charge that the facts found to be
\n\t      proved in evidence  differ materially from the
\n\t      facts alleged in the statement of\t particulars
\n\t      in   the\t charge,   but\t are\tnevertheless
\n\t      sufficient to prove the offence stated in\t the
\n\t      charge,  and   that the difference is  not  so
\n\t      material as to have prejudiced the accused  in
\n\t      his defence, it may, instead of  a finding  of
\n\t      “Not guilty” record a special finding.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (4)  The  special finding may\t  find\t the
\n\t      accused\tguilty\ton a charge subject  to\t the
\n\t      statement\t  of   exceptions    or\t  variations
\n\t      specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (5)\t The  court  shall  not\t find\t the
\n\t      accused\tguilty\ton more than one of  two  or
\n\t      more  charges  laid down in  the\talternative,
\n\t      even if conviction upon one charge necessarily
\n\t      connotes guilt upon the alternative charge  or
\n\t      charges.”\n<\/p>\n
In the present ease there was no necessity for amending\t the
\ncharge\tby the Court-Martial under Rule 50(2)  because\tthat
\nsubrule\t only relates to an alteration of charge before\t the
\nexamination    of witnesses.  The Court-Martial has also not
\ncontravened the provisions of Rule 121 (4) because that sub-
\nrule is not attracted to the present ease.  On the contrary,
\nthe finding of the Court
\n189<\/span>
\nMartial is justified in view of the language of s. 139(6) of
\nthe Army Act which states :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “139.  (6)\tA person .charged  before  a
\n\t      court-martial with an offence punishable under
\n\t      section  69 may be found guilty of  any  other
\n\t      offence  of  which he might  have\t been  found
\n\t      guilty  if  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of
\n\t      Criminal Procedure., 1898, were applicable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  accordingly reject the argument of learned\tCounsel\t for
\nthe petitioner on this part of the case.\n<\/p>\n
Finally\t it was contended on behalf of the  petitioner\tthat
\nthe  order  of the Chief of the Army  Staff  confirming\t the
\nproceedings  of the Court-Martial under s. 164 of  the\tArmy
\nAct was illegal since no reason has been given in support of
\nthe  order  by\tthe Chief of the Army Staff.   It  was\talso
\npointed\t out that the Central Government has also not  given
\nany  reasons while dismissing the appeal of  the  petitioner
\nunder  s.  165\tof the Army Act and that the  order  of\t the
\nCentral Government must therefore be held to be illegal\t and
\nultra  vires  and  quashed by the. grant of a  writ  in\t the
\nnature\tof certiorari.\tIn this context it is  necessary  to
\nreproduce  ss. 164 and 165 of the Army Act which are to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “164. (1) Any person subject to this Act
\n\t      who  considers himself aggrieved by any  order
\n\t      passed  by  any court-martial  may  present  a
\n\t      petition to the officer or authority empowered
\n\t      to  confirm  any finding or sentence  of\tsuch
\n\t      court-martial,  and the  confirming  authority
\n\t      may  take\t such  steps as\t may  be  considered
\n\t      necessary\t   to  satisfy\titself\tas  to\t the
\n\t      correctness,  legality  or  propriety  of\t the
\n\t      order passed or as to  the regularity  of\t any
\n\t      proceeding to which the order relates.
\n\t\t    (2)\t Any person subject to this Act\t who
\n\t      considers\t himself aggrieved by a\t finding  or
\n\t      sentence\tof any court martial which has\tbeen
\n\t      confirmed,  may  present\ta  petition  to\t the
\n\t      Central  Government,  the Chief  of  the\tArmy
\n\t      Staff  or any prescribed officer\tsuperior  in
\n\t      command to the one who confirmed such  finding
\n\t      or  sentence, and the Central Government,\t the
\n\t      Chief  of the Army Staff or other officer,  as
\n\t      the  case may be, may pass such order  thereon
\n\t      as it or he thinks fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “165. The Central Government, the  Chief
\n\t      of  the Army Staff or any\t prescribed  officer
\n\t      may   annul   the proceedings  of\t any  court-
\n\t      martial on the ground that they are illegal or
\n\t      unjust.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In     contrast\t to these sections, s. 162 of the  Army\t Act
\nexpressly  provides  that the Chief of the Army\t Staff\t“for
\nreasons based on
\n190<\/span>
\nthe merits of the case” set aside the proceedings or  reduce
\nthe  sentence to any other sentence which the  court   might
\nhave passed.  Section 162 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “The proceedings of every summary court-
\n\t      martial  shall without delay be  forwarded  to
\n\t      the officer commanding the division or brigade
\n\t      within  which  the trial was held, or  to\t the
\n\t      prescribed  officer; and such officer, or\t the
\n\t      Chief  of\t the  Army  Staff,  or\tany  officer
\n\t      empowered\t in this behalf by the Chief of\t the
\n\t      Army  Staff,  may, for reasons  based  on\t the
\n\t      merits  of  the  case,  but  not\tany   merely
\n\t      technical\t grounds, set aside the\t proceedings
\n\t      or  reduce the sentence to any other  sentence
\n\t      which the court might have passed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is necessary in this context to refer to Rules 61 and  62
\nof  the\t Army  Rules which prescribe the  standard  form  of
\nrecording  the opinion of the Court Martial on\teach  charge
\nand  of announcement of that finding.  These rules omit\t all
\nmention\t of  the  evidence or the  reasoning  by  which\t the
\nfinding\t is reached by the Court Martial.  Rules 61  and  62
\nare to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    61. Consideration of  finding.–(1)\t The
\n\t      court  shall  deliberate\ton  its\t finding  in
\n\t      closed  court  in the presence of\t the  judge-
\n\t      advocates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (2)\t The opinion of each member  of\t the
\n\t      court as to the finding shall be given by word
\n\t      of mouth on each charge separately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    62.\t Form, record and  announcement\t  of
\n\t      finding.-(1) The finding on every charge\tupon
\n\t      which  the  accused  is  arraigned  shall\t  be
\n\t      recorded\tand,  except as\t provided  in  these
\n\t      rules,  shall be recorded simply as a  finding
\n\t      of ‘Guilty’ or of ‘Not guilty’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     (10)  The finding on each charge  shall
\n\t      be  announced  forthwith\tin  open  court\t  as
\n\t      subject to confirmation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the\t present  case it is manifest  that   there  is\t  no
\nexpress\t obligation  imposed by s. 164 or by s. 165  of\t the
\nArmy  Act  on the confirming authority or upon\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  to\tgive reasons in support of its\tdecision  to
\nconfirm the proceedings of the Court Martial.  Mr. Dutta has
\nbeen unable to point out any other section of the Act or any
\nof  the rule made therein from which  necessary\t implication
\ncan  be\t drawn\tthat such a duty is cast  upon\tthe  Central
\nGovernment or upon the confirming authority.  Apart from any
\nrequirement imposed by the statute or statutory rule  either
\nexpressly  or  by necessary implication, we  are  unable  to
\naccept the contention of Mr. Dutta that there is
\n191<\/span>
\nany general principle or any rule of natural justice that  a
\nstatutory  tribunal  should always and in  every  case\tgive
\nreasons in support of its decision.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tEnglish law there is no general rule apart from\t the
\nstatutory  requirement\tthat the statutory  tribunal  should
\ngive  reasons  for its decision in every case.\t In  Rex  v.
\nNorthumberland\t Compensation  Appeal  Tribunal(1)  it\t was
\ndecided\t for.the first time by the Court of Appeal  that  if
\nthere  was a “speaking order” a writ of certiorari could  be
\ngranted\t to  quash the decision of an inferior\tcourt  or  a
\nstatutory  tribunal  on the ground of error on the  face  of
\nrecord.\t In  that case, Denning, L.J. pointed out  that\t the
\nrecord\tmust at least contain the document  which  initiates
\nthe   proceedings;   the   pleadings,  if   any;   and\t the
\nadjudication, but not the evidence, nor the reasons,  unless
\nthe tribunal chooses to incorporate them in its decision. It
\nwas observed that if the tribunal did state its reasons\t and
\nthose reasons were wrong in law, a writ of certiorari  might
\nbe granted by the High Court for quashing the decision.\t  In
\nthat  case  the\t statutory  tribunal   under   the  National
\nHealth\tService\t  Act,\t1946   had  fortunately\t  given\t   a
\nreasoned  decision; in other words, made a ‘speaking  order’
\nand the High Court could hold that there was an error of law
\non  the face of the record and a writ of certiorari  may  be
\ngranted for quashing it.  But the decision in this case\t led
\nto  an\tanomalous result, for it meant that the\t opportunity
\nfor  certiorari\t depended on whether or\t not  the  statutory
\ntribunal  chose to give reasons for its decision;  in  other
\nwords,\tto make a ‘speaking order’.  Not all  tribunals,  by
\nany means, were prepared to do so, and a superior court\t had
\nno  power  to compel them to give reasons  except  when\t the
\nstatute\t required it.  This incongruity was remedied by\t the
\nTribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958 (s. 12), [6 & 7  Elizabeth
\n2  c.  66],  which provides that on  request  a\t subordinate
\nauthority  must supply to .a party genuinely interested\t the
\nreasons for its decision.  Section 12 of the Act states that
\nwhen  a\t tribunal mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act
\ngives a decision it must give a written or oral statement of
\nthe  reasons for the decision, if requested to do so  on  or
\nbefore\tthe  giving or notification of\tthe  decision.\t The
\nstatement  may\tbe refused or the specification\t of  reasons
\nrestricted on grounds of national security, and the tribunal
\nmay refuse to give the statement to a person not principally
\nconcerned  with\t the decision if it thinks that to  give  it
\nwould  be  against  the interests of  any  person  primarily
\nconcerned.   Tribunals\tmay  also be exempted  by  the\tLord
\nChancellor from the duty to give reasons but the Council  on
\nTribunals  must be consulted on any proposal to do  so.\t  As
\nalready\t stated, there is no express obligation\t imposed  in
\nthe present case either by s. 164 or by s. 165 of the Indian
\nArmy Act on the confirming (1) [1952] 1 K.B. 338.\n<\/p>\n
192<\/span><\/p>\n
authority  or on the Central Government to give reasons\t for
\nits decision.  We have also not been shown any other section
\nof the Army. Act or any other statutory rule from which\t the
\nnecessary implication can be drawn that such a duty is\tcast
\nupon   the  Central  Government\t or  upon  the\t  confirming
\nauthority.   We,  therefore,  reject  the  argument  of\t the
\npetitioner  that the order of the Chief of the\tArmy  Staff,
\ndated  May  26,\t 1967 confirming the finding  of  the  Court
\nMartial\t under\ts. 164 of the Army Act or the order  of\t the
\nCentral Government dismissing the appeal under s. 165 of the
\nArmy Act are in any way defective in law.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the reasons expressed we hold that  the  petitioner
\nhas  made out no case for the grant of a writ under Art.  32
\nof the Constitution.  The application accordingly fails\t and
\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n193<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 414, 1969 SCR (2) 177 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: SOM DATT DATTA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSom Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\"},\"wordCount\":5889,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\",\"name\":\"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968","datePublished":"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968"},"wordCount":5889,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968","name":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T16:12:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-datt-datta-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-september-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Som Datt Datta vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}