news details |
|
|
| HC upholds sentence awarded by Court Martial | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Aug 21: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court (Jammu Wing) comprising Justice JP Singh and Justice Gh. Hasnain Massodi dismissed appeal filed by one Santokh Singh who challenged his reduction to rank and dismissed from service in terms of the sentence awarded by the Summary Court Martial held at Kargil on February 28, 1997 on a charge of dishonestly misappropriating sixty liters of DHPP “W” from the Tank of Vehicle valuing Rs.531/-, which had been entrusted to his charge, by selling it in the market, was dismissed. He challenged the same in the High Court, the Writ Court on May 30, 2000, dismissed the same. Against the judgment of the writ Court, he filed the present LPA seeking setting-aside of his conviction and sentence besides the judgment of the writ Court.
In the judgment written by Justice JP Singh for the Division Bench after hearing Advocate Surinder Kour appearing for the appellants whereas KK Pangotra ASGI with SS Chib appeared for Union of India & Ors observed that Perusal of the two provisions of law, referred demonstrates that any person performing the duties of a Commanding Officer, is empowered to exercise all those powers under the Army Act and Army Rules which the substantively appointed Commanding Officer may so exercise.
As the Officiating Commanding Officer, by the custom of the service, performs the same functions and duties as the Commanding Officer would so do, which fact was not disputed at the hearing of the Appeal, so in terms of Rule 5 of the Army Rules and Regulation 9 of the Defence Service Regulations, the Officiating Commanding Officer, 166 Field Regiment, did not suffer from any disability to exercise the powers of the Commanding Officer and in this view of the matter, the appellant’s trial, findings recorded and the sentence pronounced and promulgated by the Officiating Commanding Officer cannot be said to suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.Thus finding no merit in the appellant’s learned counsel’s submission, which is rejected.
Division Bench, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment impugned in the Appeal and the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
