Case: Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

3. In the judgments under appeal, the High Court has followed an earlier ruling of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Ram Labhaya Sharma v. Union of India (Criminal Writ No. 40 of 1975, decided on December 12, 1975) wherein it was held that the benefit under Section 428 of theCode of Criminal Procedure is not available to convicts, who are tried, convicted and sentenced byThere is a divergence of views between different High Court on this question. The High Court of Madras in P. P. Chandrasekaran v. Government of India (1977 Cri LJ 677 (Mad)) (a case of Court-martial under the Navy Act) and in T. S. Ramani v. Superintendent of Prisons (1984 Cri LJ 892 (Mad)) (Court-martial under the Army Act) has taken the view that the benefit of Section 428 of theCode of Criminal Procedure cannot be claimed by persons convicted by Court-martial. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Delhi in F. R. Jesuratnam v. Chief of Air Staff (1976 Cri LJ 65 (Del)) dealing with a case of Court-martial under the Air ForceA Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala has however, taken a contrary view in Subramonian v. Officer Commanding, Armoured Static Workshop (1979 Cri LJ 617 (Ker)) and the said decision was referred to and followed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Singh Bishit v. Union of India (1986 Cri LJ 563An examination of the relevant provisions of theCode of Criminal Procedure and the Army Act (as well as the corresponding provisions in the Navy Act and the Air Force Act) makes it abundantly clear that Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure can have no applicability whatever in the respect of persons convicted and sentenced by Court-martial

Reasoning:
10. As we have already indicated, we are unable to accept as correct the narrow and restricted interpretation sought to be placed on Section 5 of the Code by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. In our opinion the effect of Section 5 of the Code is clearly to exclude the applicability of the Code in respect of proceedings under any special or local law or any special jurisdiction or form of procedure prescribed by any other law. Whatever doubt might otherwise have existed on this point is totally set at rest by section 475 of theCode of Criminal Procedure which furnishes a conclusive indication that the provisions of the Code are not intended to apply in respect of proceeding before the Court-martial.In the light of the foregoing discussion we uphold as correct the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the Judgment under appeal. We also approve of the decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Delhi cited above wherein the view has been taken that the benefit of Section 428 of theCode of Criminal Procedure cannot be claimed by persons tried and sentenced by theThe decision in Subramanian v. Officer Commanding, Armoured Static Workshop (1979 Cri LJ 617 (Ker)) rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala does not contain any discussion of the relevant provisions of the two concerned statutes and what little reasoning is found in the judgment does not appeal to us as correct or sound. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in its decision in Anand Singh Bishit v. Union of India (1986 Cri LJ 563 (Cal)) has merely followed the aforesaid ruling of the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala. We hold that these two decisions do not lay down the correct law