Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

SEP. Akhalesh Kumar Ray v. UOI and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (14 Sep 2015)

Courts empowered to determine if court-martial conducted in accordance with law

MANU/DE/2675/2015

Criminal

High Courts cannot re-appreciate findings of court-martial, they can however interfere if findings reached are perverse. In a case where an Army Sepoy driver was sanctioned for illegally selling petrol belonging to the government, the Court held that the court-martial reached its conclusion on “scant…if present” evidence. It had remained unproven that the petrol belonged to the government, and the sepoy’s fingerprints were not matched with those on the bottles used to carry petrol. The Court decided that though there was merit in the leveling of charges from witness testimony, on a lack of evidence, the benefit of doubt had to be given to be given to the sepoy.

Relevant : Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and Others MANU/SC/0583/1991 Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0340/1986 Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/DE/3349/2013

Tags : ARMY   COURT MARTIAL   EVIDENCE   TESTIMONY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved