RAVI CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been tried by the Court-martial and convicted. THE order passed by the Court-martial has become final. THE applicant is, at present, lodged in some civil jail and is undergoing the sentence imposed him by the Court-martial. THE allegation is that the findings of the Court martial were not approved by the competent authority. On this basis, the argument is that the confinement of the applicant in civil jail is without any authority of law. Hence this application has been filed under SectionT 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code),

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has very frankly concealed that Section 482 of the Code has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, he has placed strong reliance on the provisions of Section 475(3) of the Code. Section 475 falls in Chapter XXXVII of the Code. This Chapter apparently deals with miscellaneous matters. The marginal note to Section 475 is: Delivery to commanding officer of persons liable to be tried by Court-martial. Against this background sub-section (3) of Section 475 may be read. It says: A High Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that a prisoner detained in any jail situated within the State be brought before a Court-martial for trial or to be examined touching any matter pending before the Court-martial. The situation envisaged in the aforequoted provision is that some prisoner, who has not as yet been tried by the Court-martial, may be sent before the Court-martial on a direction given by the High Court. The purpose of the present being sent or brought before the Court martial is to enable the Court-martial to try such a prisoner. The second part of the said provision deals with the situation where some matter is pending before the Court-martial and the prisoner is directed by the High Court to be brought before the Court-martial for being examined in connection with some matter or in relation to some matter pending before the Court-martial (emphasis supplied). Therefore, for the second part of the provision to apply, there should be a nexus between the prisoner and any matter engaging the attention of the Court-martial. Consequently, the applicant in the instant case cannot derive any assistance from the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 475 of the Code to clothe this Court with the jurisdiction of interfering with the order already passed by the Court-martial, sentencing him. Section 475 cannot also be pressed into service for conferring power upon this Court to declare the detention of the applicant as illegal and declare the detention of the applicant as illegal and without the authority of law. The proper remedy, if any, available to the applicant may be file a writ of habeas corpus either under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court or under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. 1. This application is not maintainable and is, accordingly, rejected summarily.