40 of 1975 decided on December 12, 1975 wherein it was held that the benefit under Section 428 of the CrPC is number available to companyvicts, who are tried, companyvicted and sentenced by Court Martial.
These four appeals have been filed against judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting the claims of the appellants who have been companyvicted by the General Court Martial for offences under the Army Act and are undergoing their sentences of varying terms of imprisonment for the grant of benefit to them of the provision for set off companytained in Section 428 of the CrPC.
The High Court has granted certificates of fitness under Article 134A of the Constitution and it is on the strength of those certificates that these appeals have been preferred to this Court.
There is a divergence of views between different High Courts on this question.
Section 5 of the CrPC lays down that numberhing companytained in the said Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the companytrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power companyferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.
The High Court of Madras in P.P. Chandrasekaran v. Government of India and Ors.
The relevant Chapters of the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act embody a companypletely self contained companyprehensive Code specifying the various offences under those Acts and prescribing the procedure for detention and custody of offenders, investigation and trial of the offenders by Court Martial, the punishments to be awarded for the various offences, companyfirmation and revision of the sentences imposed by Court Martial, the execution of such sentences and the grant of pardons, remissions and suspensions in respect of such sentences.
