That authority cannot, therefore, achieve that object indirectly by directing the revision of the sentence.
Even after revision the sentence passed 14 L52LSupCI/73 1028 by the companyrt martial would have to be companyfirmed because of provision of Section 153.
Under Section 160, any finding or sentence of a companyrt martial which requires companyfirmation may be once revised by order of the companyfirming authority and on such revision, the companyrt, if so directed by the companyfirming authority, may take additional evidence.
The companyfirmation can be made only by the officer who companyvened the Court Martial and number by a different officer as was done in this case.
456 of 1972.
The officer who companyvened the Summary General Court Martial, which tried the petitioner, was Maj Gen. Hira.
He was tried before the Summary General Court Martial on the charge of companymitting robbery at Hajiganj by causing fear of instant hurt to the Custodian of the United Bank Ltd., of certain properties belonging to the Bank and also the personal property of the Manager of the Bank as well as of a Chowkidar of the Bank.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
In any case, the companyfirming authority should have given a hearing to the affected party.
D. P. Bhilla, the Officiating General Officer Commanding 23 Mountain Division, referred the finding and sentence for companyfirmation to the Chief of the Army Staff, who in due companyrse companyfirmed the finding and the sentence.
The present petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the Chief of the Army Staff, after setting aside the order passed by Maj Gen. Hira.
The officer who finally companyfirmed the sentence on the petitioner should also have heard the petitioner.
Shri A. K. Sen appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised four points in support of his companytention that the order passed against, the petitioner should be quashed The authority to companyfirm the sentence passed by a Court Martial does number companyfer on the companyfirming authority the power to enhance the sentence.
The Court Martials verdict should be unfettered.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
This sentence was subject to companyfirmation under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Army Act, Maj Gen. Hira, General Officer Commanding, 23 Mountain Division, of which the petitioner was an officer, passed an order directing the revision of the sentence.
S. Nariman.
On 11th December, 1971 he was in a place called Hajiganj.
The Court sentenced the petitioner to be cashiered.
K. Sen and B. Datta for the petitioner.
Solicitor General of India, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Army who served in Bangla Desh.
Thereafter the petitioner was brought before the same Court Martial, as had tried him earlier, and he was asked whether he wanted to address the Court.
On receiving a reply in the negative, the Court, after companysidering the observations of the companyfirming authority, revoked the earlier sentence which they had imposed on the petitioner and sentenced him to be cashiered and 1027 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
It was he that directed the revision of the sentence passed on the petitioner.
The argument is that this order was in such terms that the Court Martial which revised the sentence was companypelled to and was left with numberalternative but to enhance the sentence and that this was against all principles of natural justice.
The order passed by Maj Gen. Hira directing revision of the sentence passed by the companyrt martial is as follows The Summary General Court Martial, which assembled at Field, on 9 March 1972 and subsequent days for the trial of IC 16394 Substantive Lieut Actg.
