J. 65 dealing with a case of companyrt martial under the Air Force Act.
L.J. 617 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 and Ors.,
Baldev Atrey, K.B. Rohtagi, R.A. Gupta, V.K. Jain, S.K. Gupta and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant.
1986 Cri.
13 1 of 1975.
40 of 1975 decided on December 12, 1975 wherein it was held that the benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is number available to companyvicts, who are tried, companyvicted and sentenced by Court Martial.
There is a divergence of views between different High Courts on this question.
S. Rao, R.S. Sodhi, B. Parthasarathi and Ms. A. Subha shini for the Respondents.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1977 Cri.
The High Court of Madras in P.P. Chandrasekaran v. Government of India and Ors.,
A Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala has however, taken a companytrary view in Subramanian v. Officer Commanding Armoured Static Workshop, 1979 Cri.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. 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 company victed 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 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The same view has been taken by the High Court of Delhi in F.R. Jesuratnam v. Chief of Air Staff, 1976 Cri.
Writ No.
The High Court has granted certifi cates 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.
The posi tion under the Army Act will equally govern persons sen tenced to undergo imprisonment by Court Martial under the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
J. 892 companyrt martial under the Army Act has taken the view that the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be claimed by persons companyvicted by Court Martial.
1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
532 of 1976.
J. 677 a case of companyrtmartial under the Navy Act and in S. Ramani v. The Superintendent of Prisons, 1982 Cri.
In the judgments under appeal, the High Court has fol lowed an earlier ruling of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Ram Labhaya Sharma v. Union of India and Others, in Criminal Writ No.
