Q: Elaborate the citation of Union Of India vs P.S.Gill on 27 November, 2019 ?

Ans: 

Union Of India vs P.S.Gill on 27 November, 2019
The General Court Martial was convened allegations pertaining to the irregularities in procurement of ration, as a result of which the quality of supplies for the troops was compromised. The Respondent filed original application, assailing the validity of the order convening the General Court Martial. The Tribunal held that a prima facie case to proceed against the Respondent by a General Court Martial was not made out. The Tribunal was of the opinion that even if the entirety of evidence of the prosecution was taken to be true, no offence was made out against the Respondent. The Appellants made an attempt to obtain leave to Appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to approach this Court, which was not entertained.
The honourable Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal:
(i) Any matter relating to the conditions of service falls within the definition of service matters under Section 3(0) of the Act and can be the subject matter of an application filed before the Tribunal. Conditions of service mean those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by any person right from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even after his retirement including pension etc. Therefore, conditions of service also include dismissal from service.
(ii) It was clear that any proceeding which leads to an order of termination would fall within the expression relating to conditions of service. In any event, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent could not be said to be not related to his service. A final order to be passed by the General Court Martial, apart from the imposition of other penalties, might have led to the termination of the service of the Respondent.
(iii) Regarding the charges sought to be framed against the Respondent, there was no error in the approach of the Tribunal. The material on record was perused by the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the Respondent. There was no reason to interfere with the said findings.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Ans: While issuing the cheque, a drawer should draw two parallel lines on its left side and should write 'account only' in between them. By doing this, the cheque becomes an account payee cheque and the payment will be made only in the bank account of the payee. In case of any type of fraud, the payee can be traced. Having the above- mentioned precautions, a drawer can be avoided from fraud to a great extent.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000 ?

Ans:  Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000. The Kerela High Court held that Section 138 of negotiable instrument act is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt and it can not be said that the time barred debt is legally enforceable debt. For the reasons stated above, the Kerela High Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.  The Kerela High Court sees no infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. This appeal is groundless and is liable to be dismissed.
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more