Intent Of Army Act Is Not To Protect Army Personnel By Awarding Them Lesser Punishment Even For Serious Offences
Case: State of Sikkim vs Jasbir Singh
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case: CrA 85 of 2022
Court Observation: “If that was the intent of the legislature- that is to protect persons subject to the Army Act by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offences – then the Act would not have provided for concurrent jurisdiction of court-martial and ordinary criminal courts at all”
“The Sessions Judge was competent and there was no error in the assumption or the exercise of the jurisdiction. The consequence of the decision of the High Court is to foist an obligation on the Army Authorities to hold a court-martial despite a clear and unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions”
“The words of the statute clearly indicate that the legislature provided different punishments for serious offences which under law are punishable with death or life imprisonment, and for all other offences. In case of the former, subSection (a) of Section 69 provides that the court-martial may convict him and punish him with death or life imprisonment. In addition to this, the court-martial may also give a lesser punishment under the Army Act (such as cashiering, dismissal from service, etc., provided under Section 7127). The use of the word “and” in sub-Section (a) clarifies the intent of the legislature, which is to ensure that the Army authorities have sufficient discretion to grant a punishment for serious offences, over and beyond what is permissible under Penal Code. This however, does not imply that a person who is otherwise liable for death or life imprisonment can be granted a lesser punishment under the Army Act. In contrast, sub-Section (b) of Section 69 uses the term “or” to indicate that for offences that under the Penal Code or any other law are of less severity, the Army authorities may order a lesser punishment”
If the argument of the respondent is accepted, it would imply that a person who is convicted and punished by a Court-martial under the Army Act will be in an advantageous position than a person who, though subject to the Army Act, has been convicted by an ordinary criminal court. If that was the intent of the legislature – that is to protect persons subject to the Army Act by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offences – then the Act would not have provided for concurrent jurisdiction of court-martial and ordinary criminal courts at all. Although the Army Act is special law in this case as compared to the IPC, if the statute in its text does not make any qualifications or exceptions to the general law, it would be impermissible for the court to read such qualifications in the Act. Thus, we are unable to accept this submission of the respondent.
Previous Posts
Conviction Can be Solely Based Upon Dying Declaration Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
Freedom Of Speech & Expression Extends To Reporting Judicial Proceedings: Supreme Court Rejects ECI Prayer To Stop Media Reporting Of Oral Remarks Download Judgement
