| Font Size |
The court's observation came while dismissing a revision petition filed by a Lance Havildar accused of killing his wife while on leave, challenging the order of a Magistrate who refused to transfer the case to an Army court.
Justice A Selvam in his order yesterday said both the criminal court as well as the Army courts enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction to try criminal offences.
The petitioner was accused of killing his wife on Aug 25 last year during his visit to Usilampatti near here on leave.
The judge said that as per Section 70 of the Army Act, a person accused of murder, culpable homicide or rape should not be tried through court martial unless the offence had been committed while he was in active service or at any place outside the country or at a frontier post.
The petitioner had claimed that he should be tried only through a court martial because casual leave comes within the purview of "active service" as held by the Supreme Court in 1995.
Justice Selvam agreed that a soldier on casual leave could be considered to be in active service. However, he said that neither Army act nor the code of criminal procedure prevented a criminal court from conducting trial against servicemen.
Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|
This headline is misleading. In fact, the judgement by no means says 'no court martials', it says "a civil court can ALSO try such an offence". Meanwhile, Mr. "Abraham" below seems to delight in making what is certainly a libellous statement, which the inadequate disclaimer presented by IE will not absolve it of responsibilirt for.
This judgement is great.We can not trust the Army Court because the army always want to create a good image of itself and may not conduct the trial properly.If a civilian is affected,he should be tried in a criminal court
Actually, what is being said is that there is concurrent jurisdiction. This is subject to debate, interpretation, and appeal.