Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 169

4.6. Differences in the procedures in the Navy Act and the Army Act.-

Pausing here, we may point out that the procedure provided by the Navy Act, 1957, in this behalf is different from that under the Army Act in certain respects. The differences between the two are:-

(a) The Navy Act does not require confirmation of the sentence or order recorded by the courts martial as is required by the Army Act. The only exception is where a sentence of imprisonment is awarded to an officer in which case the sentence pronounced by the court-martial cannot be implemented until the same has been communicated to the Chief of Naval Staff, who is entitled to pass such orders thereon as he may think fit. The sentence or order shall be implemented subject to such directions as he may make. It is the responsibility of the convening authority to take necessary steps to give effect to the sentence (Regulation 194 of the Regulations for the Navy, Part II).

(b) The Navy Act provides for judicial review of the proceedings of trials held by court martial. The power of judicial review is vested in the Judge Advocate-General which power can be exercised either suo motu or on an application made by the aggrieved person. It is open to the Judge Advocate-General to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the convict if the circumstance of the case so call for. The convict can be heard either in persons or through an advocate or an officer of the Indian Navy.

The Judge Advocate-General then makes a report to the Chief of Naval Staff for such orders thereon as the latter may think fit (section 160). Section 161 of the Navy Act provides that in all cases of capital sentence and in all cases where the courts martial is ordered by the President, the Chief of Naval Staff shall send the matter with his recommendations to the Central Government. In other cases, the discretion lies with him to send such a report to the Central Government or not.

(c) According to sub-section (2) of section 161, an order of acquittal made by the courts martial cannot be interfered with or set aside either by the Judge Advocate General or the Chief of the Naval Staff.

(d) Section 162 provides that it is open to a person aggrieved with the finding or sentence of any court martial to present a petition to the Central Government or the Chief of Naval Staff. This remedy is in addition to the remedy of filing an application before the Judge Advocate-General provided by section 160. Section 163 provides that on such petition being filled the Central Government or the Chief of Naval Staff may make any of the orders specified therein except on order to enhance the sentence.

Amendment of Army, Navy and AIR Force Acts Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys