Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Supreme Court pulls up Army in Pathribal encounter case
January, 25th 2012

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Army for stalling the prosecution in the 2000 Pathribal encounter case in Jammu and Kashmir, initiated by the CBI against five officers, by not taking action under the Army Act and not allowing the criminal courts from proceeding with their prosecution.

Responding to the court's query on January 20 on the stand of the Army, Additional Solicitor-General P.P. Malhotra told a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar that the Army was not interested in taking over the case and court-martialling the officers under the Army Act.

The Bench is hearing petitions relating to the Centre's claim of immunity and applicability of the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in the North East and Jammu and Kashmir. The CBI, on the other hand, registered cases against Army men, treating some of the killings as encounter deaths, and filed charge sheets in the courts concerned. Shocked to hear this response from the Army, Justice Swatanter Kumar told the ASG: You [the Army] don't want to take over the case and initiate court martial proceedings against them. You don't allow the criminal justice system to go ahead.

Justice Chauhan observed: The victims cannot be remedy less. No person can be harassed. No jawan should exceed limits. You cannot interpret and misinterpret the law and expect citizens to wait.

We cannot take over the case, Mr. Malhotra said. The Armed Forces are bound to protect their men.

The Army contended that in a disturbed area, where the AFSPA was in force, no inquiry could be initiated against armed forces personnel called in to assist the civilian police, without the government's sanction let alone a charge sheet being filed.

They are protected under Section 6 of the AFSPA, Mr. Malhotra said. This had vitiated the entire CBI inquiry into the episode. The Army personnel shot dead seven alleged militants in the incident. The Army had then claimed that they were responsible for killing several Sikhs in an earlier encounter in Chhattisinghpora during the former U.S. President Bill Clinton's visit to India. But the J&K government later sought sanction for their prosecution after some evidence came to light that it was a fake encounter.

Not satisfied with the ASG's response, the Bench sought Army records to show whether these cases had been put up before the Commanding Officer (CO) of the area for his decision. The CO was the authority to decide whether to court martial the men or allow civilian courts to try them.

The Bench also suo motu impleaded the Union Home and Defence Secretaries and asked them to explain their position on whether sanction was a must even for filing an FIR. The Bench said: These officers will now have to protect themselves. But the Union of India has a dual responsibility. It has to ensure that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty punished.

The Bench wondered why the Army was reluctant to try these cases when it did not have to take any sanction from the government to act against them. Article 21 of the Constitution [right to life] is for both the accused and the victims, The Bench said. It wanted to know from the Army whether in any prior case sanction from the government had been sought for investigating any case.

The Bench directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on February 3.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions