Army Act, 1950 Death sentence

30

Act,1961 Determination of question Held, whether

there is an arbitration agreement or not falls fordecision of
court under section 3 To be decided by Court
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd.,
MANU/SC/0362/1996 Followed
See under Arbitration Agreement MANU/SC/0151/2006
Coram: Arun Kumar and R.V. Raveendran, JJ. [Decided
On: 12.01.2006]

Army Act, 1950

Synopsis
1.
2.
3.
4.

Death sentence
Dismissal
Promotional Examination
Section 18

Death sentence
[56] Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Devendra Nath
Rai MANU/SC/0303/2006
Death sentence Conviction Question relating to imposition
of Determination of
Armed Forces Sentence-Imposition of death sentenceSections 71(a) and 69 Determination of Held, where
penalty of death sentence is to be awarded, balance sheet
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be
considered
Held If upon taking an overall global view of all the
circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions
and taking into account the answers to the questions posed
by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the
circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is
warranted, the court would proceed to do so. [para 7]
What is culled out from the decisions noted above is that
while deciding the question as to whether the extreme
penalty of death sentence is to be awarded, a balance sheet
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn
up. [para 8]
In the instant case, the High Court has not attempted to do
that exercise and has come to an abrupt conclusion about
the case being not covered by the rarest of rare category.
That is clearly contrary to the principles set out by this
Court in the decisions noted above. [para 9]
Coram: Arijit Pasayat and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ. [Decided
On: 10.01.2006]

[56]

Dismissal
[57] Gen. Officer Comm. in Chief, Lucknow and Ors.
Vs. R.P. Shukla (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. MANU/SC/
8188/2006
Dismissal Non-observance of Army Rule 180 Order of
High Court to be set aside
Armed Forces Dismissal Rule 180 of Army Rules
respondent found guilty sentenced to one year of rigorous
imprisonment and dismissed from service respondent filed
writ petition before High Court writ petition allowed by
High Court on ground of non-observance of Army Rule 180
Appeal Supreme Court after perusal of entire records
concluded that Court of Inquiry had strictly observed and
complied with Army Rule 180 Order of High Court set
aside.
Held It is submitted that the existing terms of all the
respondents have already expired much before the order of
reinstatement was passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh vide its judgment dt.04.01.1996. Since the terms
of the engagement of all the three respondents have already
expired, they cannot also be reinstated in service. It is
stated that the respondents were employed in service on
short term basis, their terms of employment expired way
back on 25 Sept.1995 and the High Court Judgment came
in 4th January, 1996. On this ground also, the respondents
have no case. [para 6]
For all the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of
the High Court which is impugned in this appeal. In the
result, the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. [para7]
8. As already noticed, the High Court has disposed of the
matter only on the ground of non-observance of Army Rule
180. At the time of hearing before us, the entire records were
placed before us and we have perused the same. Therefore,
we decided to consider the entire matter on merits and
accordingly allowed the present appeal as above. [para 8]
R.P. Shukla and Ors. Vs. Central Officer Commanding-inChief, Lucknow and Ors. (MANU/MP/0059/1996)
Reversed
Coram: A.R. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
[Decided On: 22.05.2006]

[58] Romesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI)

and Ors. MANU/SC/3449/2006
Dismissal Chief of Army Staff followed requisite procedure
and issued certificate as contemplated in proviso to Rule 17
Service Dismissal Rule 17 of Army Rules, 1954 and
Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India Appellant
dismissed from Army Service on allegation of involvement
in espionage activities Appellant challenged order of