The Supreme Court had recently observed that the main intent and purpose of the Army Act was not to protect the army personnel by awarding them lesser punishment even and especially for serious offences. f that was the intent of the legislature- that is to protect persons subject to the Army Act by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offences and then in this case the Act would not have provided for more of concurrent jurisdiction of court-martial and ordinary criminal courts at all. 

" Partnered by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman and Barrister Remura Mahbub, Tahmidur Rahman Remura is considered as one of the best law firms in Bangladesh. As the best law firm in Dhaka, Tahmidur Rahman Remura has developed into one of Bangladesh’s most cutting-edge and modern law firms by fusing its more than five years of legal tradition with cutting-edge global best practices. With offices already established in internationally significant cities, the firm aim to continue our global expansion.

Contact the law firm in Dhaka through:

Email: info@trfirm.com
Phone number: 01847220062 or 01779127165

 

This was the opinion of the bench that comprised of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant while allowing an appeal that was filed by the State of Sikkim against an order that was passed by the Sikkim High Court which had directed that a criminal case against an army officer be handed over to court-martial. The Apex Court bench along the lines of the question of jurisdiction of the Sessions Court had held that the criminal court would have jurisdiction in order to try a case against army personnel if it was found that the Commanding Officer does not exercise the discretion as under Section 125 of the Army Act to help initiate court-martial in accordance to the offence.