Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: calcutta police act 1866 Sorted by: old Court: armed forces tribunal aft regional bench jaipur Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.022 seconds)

Feb 14 2011 (TRI)

inderjeet Singh Vs. the Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministr ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Jaipur

Decided on : Feb-14-2011

..... which can lead to any body to commit such an offence. the rifle was not recovered from direct possession of the accused-applicant but it was handed over to the police by one maj nikhil kumar. there is very likelihood that the decision will take a longer time. without going into the merits of the case, the applicant prayed for suspension ..... argued that while conducting the proceedings under summary general court martial, the authorities have not complied with the army rules 61 and 67, so also sec.132 of the army act. there is no evidence, which could suggest that members of the court martial have deliberation on its finding in closed court in the presence of the judge-advocate and decision ..... -applicants assisted by col veerendra mohan, officer-in-charge(legal) has argued that court martial proceedings have been conducted against the accused-applicant as per the provisions of the army act and army rules and at the time of conclusion, doors of the court were closed and every member of the court martial has ..... acted independently and gave their own opinion independently and separately. if the presiding officer appended his signatures on the proceedings then it would be presumed that every member of the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //