ML SP X

DISSERTATION
ON
OFFENCES RELATING TO PERSONNELS OF INDIAN ARMY, NAVY & AIR FORCE
BY
SOMESH PANDEY
2016100
SEMESTER X
5 YEAR INTEGRATED B.A., LL.B. (HONS.) COURSE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. ARVIND NATH TRIPATHI
SUBJECT
MILITARY LAW
DATE OF SUBMISSION
APRIL 30, 2021
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

“NYAYAPRASTHA”, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-531035
ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE………………………………………………………………………………......3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………...…..3
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………...…….4
AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………...……...5
SCOPE OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………..………5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………..…...6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………..……….6
HYPOTHESIS……………………………………………………………………………..…….6
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..………...7
OFFENCES RELATED TO PERSONNELS OF ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE………8
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES UNDER CHAPTER VIII OF IPC, 1860…………….31
MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM………………………………………………………………33
HISTORY OF MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA…………………………………34
DIFFRENCE BETWEEN THE THREE SERVICE ACTS………………………………….35
CRITICISM OF THE SERVICE ACTS………………………………………………………37
SUGGESTIONS GIVEN BY THE 5TH LAW COMMISSION 42ND REPORT………..……41
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….....42
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………....43
2
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled OFFENCES RELATING TO PERSONNELS

OF INDIAN ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE for the Seminar Paper MILITARY LAW
submitted to DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
VISAKHAPATNAM; is a record of original work done by MR. SOMESH PANDEY under
my supervision and guidance to my satisfaction.
VISAKHAPATNAM SIGNATURE OF THE GUIDE

DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express sincere gratitude to my MILITARY LAW Professor DR. ARVIND
NATH TRIPATHI Sir who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful Seminar Paper
on the topic OFFENCES RELATING TO PERSONNELS OF INDIAN ARMY, NAVY
AND AIR FORCE.
While drafting this Seminar Paper, I came to know many new things which will help me a lot in
the journey of life which I am about to embark. I would also like to thank my Librarian Sir,
seniors, friends and family who supported me a lot in completing this Seminar Paper within the
deadline; in the hard times of COVID-19.
3
ABSTRACT
Every nation reaches a stage where it feels the need for a code of laws and regulations for the
maintenance and administration of its armed forces. Members of the armed forces, by virtue of
their membership of such armed forces, do no cease to have duties as citizens. The object of the
disciplinary code wherever it is present, is to ensure that the will of the ‘commander’ is put into
effect. Military law therefore traces its origins to the prerogative power of rulers. These codes or
rules can be seen in various points of history in different forms. Whether it be the ‘Digest and
Codex’ of emperor Justinian which was one of the first formalized forms of such Codes or the
articles of war of Maurice of Nassau and Gustav II Adolf which had a considerable influence on
the national commanders who served under them.
In France, statutory sanctions are enumerated by Articles 48 SGM (for career soldiers) and 9l
SGM (for non-career soldiers). According to Article 48 SGM, they can be pronounced for
professional insufficiency, habitual misbehaviour, and serious fault in service or against
discipline, fault against honour or condemnation to imprisonment. The Counseil d’Etat has
recently decided that a soldier who by negligence exposes the men placed under his authority to
danger commits a serious fault which justifies a statutory sanction. Article 30 RDGA establishes
the same principle: the same fault may engender cumulatively a disciplinary punishment. a
professional sanction, a statutory 'sanction and/or a penal sanction. Disciplinary action is
independent from penal action, which means that a penal sanction does not necessarily provoke a
disciplinary sanction, but the, absence of penal proceedings does not prevent a disciplinary
punishment. Disciplinary arrest is not subtracted from imprisonment under penal law.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the foundation of military law in the United States.1 It
was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the
United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that, "The Congress shall have
Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces".
Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). If the
trial results in a conviction, the case is reviewed by the convening authority the commanding
1
Retrieved From: <https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/unification-of-the-army-the-navy-and-the-air-force-
act-2/>
4
officer who referred the case for trial by court-martial. The convening authority has discretion to
mitigate the findings and sentence, set aside convictions, and/or to remand convictions and/or
sentences back to a court-martial for re-hearing.
In India there are various Acts which serve the purpose of military disciplinary provisions. These
include The Army Act, 1950, the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 and the Air Force Act,
1950. Although Chapter VII of Indian Penal Code is called ‘OF OFFENCES RELATING TO
THE ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE’; it essential to highlight the fact that this Chapter is
concerned with the offences which might be committed by people who are not in the armed
forces i.e. the civilian population.
This particular Chapter of the Indian Penal Code consists of Sections 131-140. Before delving
into each section and its assigned punishment according to the Code it is extremely important to
understand at the onset that the offences mentioned here are not punishable under the Code for
persons who are members of the armed forces of our country.
Section 139 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that the persons subject to several special
laws such as the Army Act, the Navy Discipline Act, the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, the
Air Force Act or the Air Force Act, 1950 are not subject to the punishment for any of the
offences mentioned under this Chapter.2
AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The Aim and Objective of this Seminar Paper is to critically analyse the Offences relating to the
Personnel’s of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the
three Service Acts respectively.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of the study for this Seminar Paper will be restricted to the laws, legal principles and
jurisprudence with regard to the Offences relating to the Personnel’s of the Indian Army, Navy
and Air Force under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the three Service Acts respectively.
2
Retrieved From: <https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/military-justice-system-in-india-2/>
5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology used in this Seminar Paper will be doctrinal research. The author
would analyse judgments of the various courts to determine the aim of the study. The data
collected is mainly secondary in nature. The sources of data for this Seminar Paper include the
literature published by various magazines, Journals, Books and research papers dealing with the
Offences relating to the Personnel’s of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and the three Service Acts respectively.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 42nd Report, Fifth Law Commission of India, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/ 1-

50/Report42.pdf. : In this Law Commission Report the suggestions and
recommendations with regard to the changes in the three Service Acts and the provision
of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code are given in order to make them more effective
and stringent.
 https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/unification-of-the-army-the-navy-and-
the-air-force-act-2/ : In this write up the Author has critically analyses the military
justice system of many foreign countries and suggested that in place of three separate
service legislations there need to be a unified code that governs all three services.
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, Pg- 277, (rev. Justice K T Thomas, M
A Rashid, 35th ed. 2017): In this Commentary the Provisions of Chapter VIII of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 are discussed and many landmark judicial pronouncements are
also discussed.
HYPOTHESIS
The chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with certain offences which might be
committed by the civilian population in relation to the defence service personnel. Since the same
acts committed by the latter are punishable severely by the Act to which they are subject, it is
6
provided in section 139 of the Code that they are not punishable under the Code for such acts.
The provisions of this chapter are thus in aid and support, from the civilian angle. Of the Army,
Navy and Air Force Acts which are designed to maintain perfect discipline in the armed forces of
the Union.
INTRODUCTION
Chapter VII of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences committed by civilians in relation to
officers in Army, Navy and Air force of the Government of India. The main objective of this
chapter is to maintain discipline and order in the Armed Forces of the Union.3
In most of the countries across the globe, the defence personnel are governed by their own
special laws. But if they commit serious offences (like murder) they can be tried by civil or
criminal courts. However, the Military Court does not have the power to exercise jurisdiction if
the offence is committed by a civilian. Similarly, as per Section 139 of the code, persons who are
subject to court-martial will not be dealt with under the code. The special laws which govern
them in India are:
 The Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950);
 The Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934); and
 The Indian Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950).
The correlation between Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Army Act, 1950 can be studied under the
following table:
S.NO Indian Penal Code, 1860 Army Act, 1950
Mutiny is a capital offence under Section

Sections 131 & 132 punishes abetment of mutiny
37. Section 37(e) mutiny, includes any
1. and attempt to seduce any officer, soldier, sailor
endeavours to seduce such personnel from
or airman in the Government of India.
duty.
3
Retrieved From: < https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-law>
7
Sections 133 & 134 makes abetment of assault by
any officer, soldier, sailor or airman on any Under Section 40 such assault
2.
superior officer in the execution of his duty is punishable for a term up to 14 years.
punishable.
Under Section 38, deserting and aiding

Sections 135 & 136 talks about abetment of
3. deserters punishable for imprisonment up
desertion and harbouring a deserter.
to 7 years.
Section 138 punishes for an act of An act of insubordination is punishable

4. insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or with 7 years of imprisonment
airman. under Section 42.
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE PERSONNELS OF ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE
The classification of offences which are committed by civilians in relation to the Army, Navy
and Air Force governed by the Indian Penal Code which can be studied in the following
manner4:
ABETMENT OF MUTINY
Section 131 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 states that any person who abets the commission
of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air force or attempts to
seduce an officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, such person shall be
liable to be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and shall also be
liable to fine. This section has two parts. First part makes abetment of mutiny punishable and the
Second part makes an attempt of seduction punishable. It would in this way create the impression
that Section 131 applies to situations where mutiny isn’t committed as a result of the abetment.
The offence contemplated under Section 131 is an abetment which is not followed by actual
4
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, Pg- 277, (rev. Justice K T Thomas, M A Rashid, 35th ed. 2017).
8
mutiny, or which, supposing actual mutiny follows, is not the cause of that mutiny. It was
observed by the court that the offence of mutiny consist in extreme subordination as if a soldier
resists by force, nor if a number of soldiers rise against or oppose their military superiors, such
acts proceedings from alleged or pretended grievances of a military nature. Acts of a riotous
nature directed against the government or civil authorities rather than against military superiors
seem also to constitute mutiny.
Section 131 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Overview of the section
Offence: Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce an officer, soldier sailor or airman from his
allegiance or duty.
Punishment: Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine.
Cognizance: Cognizable.
Bail: Non-Bailable.
Triable: Court of Session.
Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty. Whoever
abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, [sailor or airman], in the Army, [Navy or
Air Force] of the [Government of India] or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, [sailor or
airman] from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Classification of Offence
In this section the words “officer”, “soldier”, “sailor” and “airman” include any person subject to
the Army Act, the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Naval Discipline Act, the Indian Navy
(Discipline) Act,1934 (34 of 1934) 1the Air Force Act or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950),
as the case may be. The offence committed under this section is a Cognizable & non- bailable
offence tried by Court of Session. Cognizable offences refer to the offences so heinous and grave
in nature that the police can arrest without any warrant. E.g. murder (section 300), rape (section
375), dowry death (section 304B), kidnapping (section 359), abetting mutiny (section 131,132),
theft (section 378), Criminal breach of trust (section 405); etc. Sections 131 and 132 of the Code
punish abetment of mutiny and attempt to seduce defence service personnel from duty. Mutiny,
9
including any endeavour to seduce such personnel from duty, is a capital offence under section
37 of the Army Act.
Meaning of 'Abetment'
In order to understand the word abetment, it's essential to refer to Section 107 of Indian Penal
Code.
Section 107 of IPC- ABETMENT OF A THING

Abetment might refer to any of the following i.e., Instigation, Conspiracy or intentional aiding. A
person abets the doing of a thing, who: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or -Engages with
one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
In the case of Sanju vs State of Madhya Pradesh,5 the Supreme Court has defined 'Abet' as
meaning to aid, to assist, or to set another one to commit. The definition of ‘abet’ as laid down,
makes it clear that abetment only occurs when there are at least two persons involved, which
further directs us towards the arrangement and operation of the act. (Kartar Singh vs State of
Punjab6)
Thus, in simple words ABETMENT means instigating, or intentionally aiding someone towards
commission of any illegal act; by wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of real fact
leading the person to do that act. Abetment can be Abetment in India of offences outside India
(Section-108A of IPC); Abetment of mutiny (Section-131,132 of IPC); Abetment of suicide
(Section- 306 of IPC); etc.
ABETTOR refers to a person who directly encourages another person to commit a crime and is
guilty of provoking the other person. According to the Section 108 of the Indian Penal code, the
definition of abettor is “A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an
offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence if committed by a person capable
of the law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the
abettors.”
5
(2002)5 SCC 371.
6
1994 Cri LJ 3319.
10
Meaning of 'Mutiny'
According to the Cambridge Dictionary mutiny refers to an occasion when a group of people,
especially soldiers or sailors, refuses to obey orders and/or attempts to take control from people
in authority. Mutiny might be referred to a rising against lawful or constituted authority,
particularly in the naval or Armed Services.
In the context of Criminal Law, mutiny refers to an insurrection of soldiers or crew members
against the authority of their commanders. The offense is similar to the crime of Sedition, which
is a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, punishable by both state and
federal laws. In general words mutiny means an open rebellion against the proper authority by-
officers, soldiers, sailor or airman. The terms officers, soldiers, sailor or airman includes any
person subject to the Army Act, 1950; The Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; The Air Force
Act, 1950. Most easily understood example of mutiny can be The VELLORE MUTINY (10
July, 1806) against the East India Company; or the SEPOY MUTINY, popularly known as the
First war of Independence (1857-1859) against the British rule in India.
Section 131 of Indian Penal Code basically applies to the LAYMAN (and not to the person
committing the act abetted) who abets mutiny or attempts to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman in
order to prevent him from performing his duties towards the forces. The soldier, sailor or the
airman aren't included to be punished under this as they are dealt with their own laws in the court
martial.
Punishment under 131 of IPC

The person committing offence defined under Section 131 of IPC is liable to be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
Ten years, and shall also be liable to Fine.
It can, thus be concluded that according to Section 131 of Indian Penal Code any layman
individual who abets to commit mutiny or seduces a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty
would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for life; or imprisonment which may extend to
10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
The above mentioned section applies only to the Layman (individual not serving Indian army,
11
navy or air force) and not to the military personnel’s (as they've their own laws of court martial).
This section only punishes general individuals for abetting the mutiny.

Overview of the section
Offence- Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof.
Punishment- Death or Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine.
Cognizance- Cognizable.
Bail- Non bailable.
Triable- Court of Session.
Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof. Whoever abets the

committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of
the Government of India, shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be
punished with death or with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In order to make any individual fall under this section, Actus reus in respect of done Abetment
must be performed. Without actus reus (causing mutiny) this section will not be applied. Actus
reus means overt did or unlawful commission must be done carrying out a plan with the guilty
intention. Here, unlawful commission merely means that there must be caused the mutiny by an
officer, soldier or sailor of army, navy, or air force as the result of Abetment caused by the
layman. Without Actus reus, no one can be punished under this section. The offence committed
under this section is a Cognizable & non- bailable offence tried by Court of Session. Cognizable
offences refer to the offences so heinous and grave in nature that the police can arrest without
any warrant. E.g. murder (section 300), rape (section 375), dowry death (section 304B),
kidnapping (section 359), abetting mutiny (section 131,132), theft (section 378), Criminal breach
of trust (section 405); etc.
Section 132 of Indian Penal Code applies to the LAYMAN (and not to the person committing the
act abetted) who abets mutiny and in the consequence of that Abetment, the mutiny is created.
This means that to make any individual fall under this section, Actus reus in respect of done
12
Abetment must be performed. Without actus reus( causing mutiny) this section will not be
applied upon any individual.
Punishment under 132 of IPC

The person committing offence defined under Section 132 of IPC is liable to be punished with
Death or Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine.
It can thus, be concluded that according to Section 132 of Indian Penal Code, any layman
individual who abets mutiny and in consequence of that Abetment, the mutiny is caused by the
officer, soldier or sailor of Army, Navy or Air Force; shall be liable under this section and would
be punished with Death or Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years & Fine.
The above mentioned section applies only to the Layman (individual not serving Indian army,
navy or air force) and not to the military personnel (as they've their own laws of court martial).
This section therefore punishes ONLY the layman for causing mutiny with Abetment.
Under Section 132, If mutiny is committed as a consequence of such abetment by any officer,
soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air force then, such a person will be punished
with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years and also
with fine. Both Sections 131 & 132 must be read together.
Section 131, mentions that “officer”, “soldier”, “sailor” or “airman” will include any person who
is subject to the Army Act, 1950; the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; the Air Force Act,
1950. This explanation was not there originally and was inserted by an amendment of Act 27 of
1870 and was amended by Act 10 of 1927.
In the case of Pindi Das7, he published an article in his magazine purporting to be a letter from a
sympathiser of terrorists in Punjab calculated to seduce Sikh soldiers of the Indian army to leave
their allegiance and their duty to the Government of India. Thus, the publisher and the printer
were held under section 131 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 37 of the Army Act, 1950

Mutiny: Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to
say,-
7
1907 PWR Cr.32.
13
(a) begins, incites, causes, or conspires with any other persons to cause any mutiny in the
military, naval or air forces of India or any forces co- operating therewith; or
(b) joins in any such mutiny; or
(c) being present at any such mutiny, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress the same;
or
(d) knowing or having reason to believe in the existence of any such mutiny, or of any intention
to mutiny or of any such conspiracy, does not, without delay, give information thereof to his
commanding or other superior officer; or
(e) endeavours to seduce any person in the military, naval. or air forces of India from his duty or
allegiance to the Union; shall, on conviction by court- martial, be liable to suffer death or such
less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
Section 42 and 43 of the Indian Navy Act, 1934

42. Mutiny means any assembly or combination of two or more persons subject to naval law, the
Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950),or between persons two at
least of whom are subject to naval law or any such Act,-
(a) to overthrow or resist lawful authority in the Navy, regular Army or Air Force or any part of
any one or more of them or any forces co-operating therewith or any part thereof; or
(b) to disobey such authority in such circumstances as to make the disobedience subversive of
discipline or with the object of avoiding any duty or service against, or in connection with
operations against, the enemy; or
(c) to show contempt to such authority in such circumstances as to make such conduct
subversive of discipline; or
(d) to impede the performance of any duty or service in the Navy, regular Army or Air Force or
any part of any one or more of them or any forces co-operative therewith or any part thereof.
43. Punishment for mutiny. Every person subject to naval law, who,
(a) joins in a mutiny; or
(b) begins, incites, causes or conspires with any other persons to cause a mutiny; or
(c) endeavours to incite any person to join in a mutiny or to commit an act of mutiny; or
(d) endeavours to seduce any person in the regular Army, Navy or Air Force from his allegiance
to the Constitution or loyalty to the State or duty to his superior officers or uses any means to
14
compel or induce any such person to abstain from acting against the enemy or discourage such
person from acting against the enemy; or
(e) does not use his utmost exertions to suppress or prevent a mutiny; or
(f) wilfully conceals any traitorous or mutinous practice or design or any traitorous words spoken
against the State; or
(g) knowing or having reason to believe in the existence of any mutiny or of any intention to
mutiny does not without delay give information thereof to the commanding officer of his ship or
other superior officer; or
(h) utters word of sedition or mutiny, shall be punished with death or such other punishment as is
hereinafter mentioned.
Section 37 of the Air Force Act, 1950

Mutiny
Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,
(a) begins, incites, causes, or conspires with any other persons to cause, any mutiny in the
military, naval or air forces of India or any forces co-operating therewith; or
(b) joins in any such mutiny; or
(c) being present at any such mutiny, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress the same;
or
(d) knowing or having reason to believe in the existence of any such mutiny, or of any intention
to commit such mutiny or any such conspiracy, does not, without delay, give information thereof
to his commanding or other superior officer; or
(e) endeavours to seduce any person in the military, naval or air forces of India from his duty or
allegiance to the Union. Shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death or such
less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
ABETMENT OF ASSAULT BY AN OFFICER ON A SUPERIOR OFFICER

Section 133 states that any person who abets any officer, soldier, sailor, or airman in the Army,
Navy or Air Force of the Government of India to assault any superior officer who is in the
execution of his office shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3
years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 134 provides that if an assault is committed as a
result of such abetment then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
15
may extend to 7 years and also with fine.

Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when in execution of his
office. Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, [sailor or airman], in the Army, [Navy or
Air Force] of the [Government of India], on any superior officer being in the execution of his
office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
This section is found in the eighth chapter of the IPC. Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with
Offences related to the Army, Navy and Air Force. Sections 131-135 relate to offences
committed by abetment. Abetment itself is an offence, and the possible acts that can be abetted
within the security enforcement or defense forces includes mutiny or seduce an official from
one’s duty or assault on a superior officer, or desertion of a soldier or airman or sailor, or act of
insubordination, or wearing the garb or carrying a token being used by the above defense
personnel.
To get a more holistic understanding of this section, it must be broken down into several
elements. The section finds-
a) Abetment to be an offense.
b) The abetment must be of an assault
c) That assault should be committed by a soldier, sailor, or airman.
d) This assault should only be inflicted upon the superior officer of the assaulter
e) The person who commits such assault must be in execution of his office.
f) The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Let’s take element (a). The offense is an abetment. IPC defines ‘abetment’ under s. 107 as-
“107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who;

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to
the doing of that thing;
16
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
Any of the above conditions need to be satisfied for the act to be regarded as abetment. The act
must be intentional and voluntary i.e. the abettor is well aware of the consequences such
instigation would cause.
Element (b) is that the abetment must be of an assault. The word ‘assualt’ is defined by IPC
under s. 351 which states that-
“351. Assault- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be
likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who
makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit
an assault.
Explanation- Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may
give to his gestures or preparation in such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations
amount to an assault.”
To understand assault, the words ‘criminal force’ and ‘force’ under s. 349 and s. 350 are also
needed to be understood.
“350. Criminal force- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s
consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause,
or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to
the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”
“349. Force- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or
cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of
motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s
body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that
such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or
change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of
motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.
First- By his own bodily power.

Secondly- By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or
17
Change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of
any other person.
Thirdly- By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.”
Element (c) is interesting in its approach. The words ‘Government of India’ were added after
Independence. Prior to the Independence, the army, navy and air force was under the control of
the Crown- hence, the name Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Army.
Element (d) narrows the scope of the category of people who could be at the receiving end of
such assault. The section shall only protect those incidences where the receiving end of the
assault was an officer superior in rank to the person committing the assault. The section doesn’t
state whether an abetment of assault on an officer of the same or lower rank would be meted out
with what level of punishment.
Element (e) must be read with the previous element. This offence shall only be regarded as such,
if the assault is inflicted upon the officer while the latter is executing duties under his office. For
example, if a person abets a soldier to threaten to strike the soldier’s superior in a common place
like the supermarket, where none of the individuals are present in their official capacity, then it
would not be treated as an offense under s. 133 or Chapter VIII, as the superior officer was not in
the execution of official duties.
Finally, element (f) talks of the punishment that shall be meted out. The person guilty of the
abetment shall pay a fine, depending on the outcome and the gravity of the assault, and might be
subject to imprisonment which shall not exceed a term of three years.

Element (f) specifically states that the assault must be committed in pursuance of the abetment.
The difference between s. 133 and s. 134 lies in the fact that the abetment shall be punished even
if the actual assault doesn’t take place. If a person instigates a sailor to threaten a senior officer,
and the sailor doesn’t threaten him, the person shall still be punished for his abetment under
s.133. However, if the person abets and an actual threat or assault happens in pursuance of the
abetment, s.134 will come into place.
18
Finally, element (g) talks of the punishment that shall be meted out. The person guilty of the
abetment shall pay a fine, depending on the outcome and the gravity of the assault, and might be
subject to imprisonment which shall not exceed a term of seven years.
Sections 133 and 134 deals with abetment of assault of any officer, soldier, sailor, or airman on a
superior officer. Under Section 133, only abetment of an assault is punishable while Section 134
punishes the abetment of an assault when such assault is committed as an outcome of such
abetment.

Striking or threatening superior officers. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the
following offences, that is to say,-
(a) uses criminal force to or assaults his superior officer; or
(b) uses threatening language to such officer; or
(c) uses insubordinate language to such officer; shall, on conviction by court- martial, if such
officer is at the time in the execution of his office or, if the offence is committed on active
service, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or such
less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and in other cases, be liable to suffer imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned:
Provided that in the case of an offence specified in clause (c), the imprisonment shall not exceed
five years.
Section 45 of the Indian Navy Act, 1934

Every person subject to naval law who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,-
(a) strikes or attempts to strike his superior officer; or
(b) draws or lifts up any weapon against such officer; or
(c) uses or attempts to use any violence against such officer; shall be punished,- if the offence is
committed on active service with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or such
other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.

Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,-
(a) uses criminal force to, or assaults his superior officer ; or
19
(b) uses threatening language to such officer ; or
(c) uses insubordinate language to such officer; shall, on conviction by court-martial, if such
officer is at the time in the execution of his office or, if the offence is committed on active
service, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or such
less punishment as is in this Act mentioned ; and in other cases, be liable to suffer imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned:
Provided that in the case of an offence specified in clause (c), the imprisonment shall not exceed
five years.
ABETMENT OF DESERTION
Under Section 135, any person who makes an abetment of desertion of any officer, soldier,
sailor, or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall be punished
with imprisonment for 2 years or with fine or with both. Section 135 does not recognize whether
abetment of desertion is successful or not. The desertion abetted does not need to happen. Mere
abetment is made punishable. In India laws are not only made to protect the rights of the citizen
only but also there are laws which provide protection to the people who serve the army, navy and
air force. This article is all about the protection given to the army navy and air force by the
Indian Penal Code, In this article we discuss section 135 of the code which talk about the
abetment of desertion of any soldier, airmen or any other officer of the army, navy and air force.
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment. It means where a person instigates any
person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing or intentionally aids by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. In other
words abet means assistance, cooperation and encouragement and includes wrongful purpose
Meaning of desertion The act by which a person abandons or forsakes, without justification, In
other words we can say that the abandonment of a person without consent or legal justification of
a person.
Section135 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 135 states that whoever abets the desertion of any officer, soldier, sailor or airmen in the
army, navy or air force of the government of India shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or both. Main object of this
section- The main object of this section is that the desertion abetted need not take place mere
20
abetment is made punishable, In other words we can say that if a person abets any officer for
desertion but the desertion does not take place then also the person who abets will be punished
he cannot take the defence by saying that the desertion does not takes place.
Ingredients
1) Abetment for desertion is necessary;
2) The said abetment should be against any officer of army, navy or air force. Section 135 does
not distinguish between cases where the abetment of desertions successful and where it is
unsuccessful the maximum punishment prescribed under section 135 is of 2 years whereas the
punishment under army, navy and air force acts is with death or with 7 years punishment. The
main ingredient in this section is desertion which means intention of not reporting back. In other
words we can say that if a person abets any officer for not reporting back that he/she will be
committing the offence under this section. But if we compare section 135 with the army act we
find that the punishment is more severe in the army act as compared to IPC.

Desertion and aiding desertion
(1) Any person subject to this Act who deserts or attempts to desert the service shall, on
conviction by court- martial, if he commits the offence on active service or when under orders
for active service, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned;
and if he commits the offence under any other circumstances, be liable to suffer imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
(2) Any person subject to this Act who, knowingly harbours any such deserter shall, on
conviction by court- martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
(3) Any person subject to this Act who, being cognizant of any desertion or attempt at desertion
of a person subject to this Act, does not forthwith give notice to his own or some other superior
officer, or take any steps in his power to cause such person to be apprehended, shall, on
conviction by court- martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
21
Desertion
(1) Every person subject to naval law who absents himself from his ship or from the place where
his duty requires him to be, with an intention of not returning to such ship or place, or who at any
time and under any circumstances when absent from his ship or place of duty does any act which
shows that he has an intention of not returning to such ship or place is said to desert.
(2) Every person who deserts shall,-
(a) if he deserts to the enemy, be punished with death or such other punishment as is hereinafter
mentioned; or
(b) if he deserts under any other circumstances, be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to fourteen years or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned; and in every
such case he shall forfeit all pay, head money, bounty, salvage, prize money and allowances that
have been earned by him and all annuities, pensions, gratuities, medals and decorations that may
have been granted to him and also all clothes and effects which he deserted, unless the tribunal
by which he is tried or the which he deserted, unless the tribunal by which he is tried or the
Central Government or the Chief of the Naval Staff, otherwise directs.

Desertion and aiding desertion
(1) Any person subject to this Act who deserts or attempts to desert the service shall on
conviction by court-martial, if he commits the offence on active service or when under orders for
active service, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and
161 if he commits the offence under any other circumstances, be liable to suffer imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
(2) Any person subject to this Act who knowingly harbours any such deserter shall, on
conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
(3) Any person subject to this Act who, being cognizant of any desertion or attempt at desertion
of a person subject to this Act, does not forthwith give notice to his own or some other superior
officer, or take any steps in his power to cause such person to be apprehended, shall, on
conviction by court martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
22
HARBOURING DESERTER
Section 136 states that if any person who knows or has reason to believe that any officer, soldier,
sailor, or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India has deserted,
harbours such officer, soldier, sailor, or airman, he shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. The exception is given only to a wife.
This Section implies that if any person gives harbour (shelter) to an official who has deserted
Army, Navy or Air Force working under the head of Government of India (with the exception of
the individuals who are relied upon to so), he shall be punished. The crux of this Section is
concealment of the deserter to prevent his apprehension.
Section 137 punishes the master or person in charge of a merchant vessel on board of which a
deserter has concealed himself, even though he is ignorant of such concealment. But, some lack
of care or maintenance of discipline has to be made out. The penalty is for a sum not exceeding
500 rupees.
However, in this Section, the word ‘penalty’ is used, rather than the word ‘fine’. The object
apparently is to restrict the court from imposing a sentence on the accused. The term ‘Harbour’
has been defined under Section 52 A of the code.
ABETMENT OF AN ACT OF INSUBORDINATION

Insubordination implies refusal to obey orders. Section 138 states that any person who knows it
to be an act of insubordination abets any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Military, Naval,
or Air Service of the Government of India in his act of insubordination. He shall be held liable
and shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or with fine or both if
an act is committed in consequence of such abetment. Section 138 says that any person who
abets an officer in his act of insubordination shall be punished only if the act is committed as a
result of such abetment.

Abetment of act of insubordination by soldier, sailor or airman
Chapter VII of the Indian Penal Code provides for provisions for offences related to the Army,
Navy and Air Force that mainly discuss the offences related to abetment of breach of military
laws and harbouring of offenders against that law.
23
Before delving into the discussion it is worthwhile to note that any breach or such violation of
the law does not amount to a breach of the Indian Penal Code, nor does it breach any special or
local law which is applicable to all the persons with respect to a particular subject, or related to a
particular area.
Whereas the military law is applicable to a special class of people. Hence, if this Chapter were
not present such abetment of offences would not have been punishable which necessitates the
requirement of this Chapter. The authors of the Code also provided an explanation for the
importance of this Chapter which is provided as follows: A person not being a military person, if
abets or attempts to abet a military breach then he cannot be made guilty under the Abetment of
offences as is provided under the Code because the military delinquency which he has committed
is not punishable under this Code. Additionally, it is not desirable that a person who is not
military personnel, having abetted a breach of military discipline be made amenable to the same
punishments and principles framed for abetment in this Code.
The Code says that the abettor of an offence be punished commensurately as the person who
commits the offence. The principle appears just for when it is applicable for punishments laid
down in this Code. However, the law governing the military discipline must mandate a greater
severity of laws and punishments than the civilian law. Further, the justification for the severity
lies in the peculiar duties and relations which a soldier commits to.
Nonetheless, such severity in punishment to persons who are not military personnel seems
unwarranted and therefore, this Chapter provides for a more consistent framework of law to
which such offenders can be subjected to. Nonetheless, such severity in punishment to persons
who are not military personnel seems unwarranted and therefore, this Chapter provides for a
more consistent framework of law to which such offenders can be subjected to.
This article will dwell into Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code which states the following-
"Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or
airman, in the Army, Navy or air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of
insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
24
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment of either up to a term not exceeding six months
or fine or both. This is a cognizable, non-compoundable, bailable offence with a requirement to
issue a summons in the first instance. This offence is triable by any Magistrate.
To convict a person under this section it must be shown that the accused abetted an act knowing
it to be an act of insubordination, and the act of insubordination was committed in consequence
of abetment. It is also recommended an enhancement of punishment (from imprisonment for a
term up to six months to for a term up to two years) in case of abetment of an act of
insubordination when the abetment is successful.
The Section makes abetment of insubordination punishable which is similar to the offence laid
down in Section 42 of the Army and the Air Force Act 1950. It must be shown that the person
accused under this section knew that the act which he is abetting is an act of insubordination and
further the act must be consequent to the abetment. The offence is cognizable, bailable, non-
compoundable and can be tried by any magistrate.
The Fifth Law Commission has offered a set of significant proposals for reform in the Chapter to
make it more relevant and comprehensive. With a view to widening the scope of the Chapter, the
Law Commission suggested that the Chapter should not only be confined to Army, Navy and Air
Force but should also be extended to all other armed forces of the Union of India. It, accordingly
recommended the present caption of the Chapter Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air
Force should be changed to Offences Relating to Armed Force and that the key expressions,
‘armed forces’, ‘officer’ and ‘member’ should be comprehensively defined in the proposed new
S. 130A. Interestingly, it suggested that two new provisions, s. 138 A and 138 B, dealing
respectively with inciting mutiny or an act of insubordination and dissuading from recruitment to
armed forces, be added to the present chapter. Both the proposed offences should be made
punishable with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1978, premised on recommendations of the Fifth Law
Commission, gives effect to these proposals for reform. The Fourteenth Law Commission has
not only endorsed the proposed reforms but also approved contents of the 1978 Bill
incorporating those suggestions. However, these proposals are not yet transformed into statutory
25
provisions as the 1978 Amendment Bill lapsed in 1978 due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha
during that year.
Section 42 in the Army Act, 1950

Insubordination and obstruction
(a) being concerned in any quarrel, affray, or disorder, refuses to obey any officer, though of
inferior rank, who orders him into arrest, or uses criminal force to or assaults any such officer; or
(b) uses criminal force to, or assaults any person, whether subject to this Act or not, in whose
custody he is lawfully placed, and whether he is or is not his superior officer; or
(c) resists an escort whose duty it is to apprehend him or to have him in charge; or
(d) breaks out of barracks, camp or quarters; or
(e) neglects to obey any general, local or other order; or
(f) impedes the provost- marshal or any person lawfully acting on his behalf, or when called
upon, refuses to assist in the execution of his duty a provost- marshal or any person lawfully
acting on his behalf; or
(g) uses criminal force to or assaults any person bringing provisions or supplies to the forces;
shall, on conviction by court- martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may
extend, in the case of the offences specified in clauses (d) and (e) to two years, and in the case of
the offences specified in the other clauses to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act
mentioned.

Disobedience and in subordination
Every person subject to naval law, who,-
(a) wilfully disobeys any lawful command of his superior officer ; or
(b) in the presence of his superior officer, or otherwise shows or expresses his intention to
disobey a lawful command given by such superior officer; or
(c) uses insubordinate, threatening or insulting language to his superior officer; or
(d)behaves with contempt to his superior officer shall, if the offence is committed on active
service or in a manner to show wilful defiance of authority, be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned and in
26
other cases, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such
other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.
Section 42 in the Air Force Act, 1950

Insubordination and obstruction
(a) being concerned in any quarrel, affray or disorder, refuses to obey any officer, though of
inferior rank, who orders him into arrest, or uses criminal force to or assaults any such officer ;
or
(b) uses criminal force to, or assaults any person, whether subject to this Act or not, in whose
custody he is lawfully placed, and whether he is or is not his superior officer or
(c) resists an escort whose duty it is to apprehend him or to have him in charge ; or
(d) breaks out of barracks, camp or quarters ; or
(e) neglects to obey any general, local or other order ; or
(f) impedes the provost-marshal or any person lawfully acting on his behalf or, when called
upon, refuses to assist in the execution of his duty a provost-marshal or any person lawfully
acting on his behalf ; or
(g) uses criminal force to or assaults any person bringing provisions or supplies to the Forces ;
shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may
extend, in the case of the offences specified in clauses (d) and (e) to two years, and in the case of
the offences specified in the other clauses to ten years, or such less punishment as is in this Act
mentioned.
PERSONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ACTS

No person subject to the, the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Naval Discipline Act, the
Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934), the Air Force Act the Air Force Act, 1950 (45
of 1950), is subject to punishment under this Code for any of the offences defined in this
Chapter.
According to section 139 of Indian penal code, No person subject to the Army Act, the Army
Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Naval Discipline Act, the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of
27
1934), the Air Force Act or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), is subject to punishment under
this Code for any of the offences defined in this Chapter.8
WEARING GARB
Section 140 states that any person who not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Military,
Naval, or Air Service of the Government of India wears a garb or wears a dress which carries a
token belonging to any such soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed
that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman. Such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment
up to 3 months or with fine which may extend to 500 rupees or both. This Section forbids any
person from misleading others by wearing such garb and giving an impression that he is a
soldier. The intention of the accused wearing the garb of a soldier is of inducing others to believe
that he is in service at the present time. Simply wearing a uniform or carrying a token without
any specific intention is no offence. For instance, Actors put on costumes of various defence
service personnel for their role.

Wearing grab or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman
Soldiers, sailor or airman are the backbone to our nations. SECTION 140 of INDIAN PENAL
CODE states that wearing the dress or carrying any token used by a soldier, sailor or airman with
intent that it may be believed that he is such person who is authorized with it; to create fake
identity shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment as per the descried which may
extend to three months or with fine of five hundred or more or with both under the schedule 1 of
CrPC. This Offence is not counted under compounded offences and cognizable which is
BAILABLE triable by any magistrate. It is taken under the ministry of home affairs, departed to
internal security. With a view to widening the scope of the Chapter, the Law Commission
suggested that the Chapter should not only be confined to Army, Navy and Air Force but should
also be extended to all other armed forces of the Union of India. It, accordingly recommended
the present caption of the Chapter Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force should be
changed to Offences Relating to Armed Force and that the key expressions, ‘armed forces’,
‘officer’ and ‘member’ should be comprehensively defined in the proposed new S. 130A.
8
Retrieved From: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47>
28
For understanding Section 140 IPC, looking forward to a case will be totally justified. The case
was: “Fight For Human Rights vs Union Of India9 on 17 January, 2018” In Delhi high court
This petition was filed by Mr. K. R. Chitra (Adv.) and the judgement was given by GITA
MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE CM Nos.1938-1939/2018 This petition states that the
Indian Army has issued the guidelines dated 8th January, 2016 directing the civilians and
shopkeepers not to wear or sell combat uniforms, which are worn by the personnel of the Armed
Forces. The writ petitioner has complained that the unauthorized manufacturing, stocking and
selling of combat uniforms, backpacks, sleeping bags, badges and shoes etc. which are used by
the personnel of the Armed Forces imperil the national security as well as the safety of the lives
of the citizens of India and that all measures are required to be taken by the respondents on an
urgent basis so that such illegal actions are prevented. In support of the prayers made in the writ
petition, the writ petitioner has referred to the incident which took place on 2nd January, 2016 in
which a heavily armed group wearing Indian Army fatigues attacked the Pathankot Air Force
Station of the Western Air Command of the Indian Air Force, resulting in serious casualties.
Premised on the above assertions, the writ petitioner has made the following prayers:
"a) Direct the respondent to effectively enforce the guidelines issued by them on 8.01.2016,
throughout the length and breadth of the Indian Union within a limited time frame.
b) Direct the respondent to take a concrete immediate steps to prevent private enterprises, shops,
individuals etc. operating in different states of India and Union Territories e.g. Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Uttarakahnd, J&K, and Delhi etc. from unauthorized manufacturing, stocking and
selling of Combat Uniforms, Backpacks, Sleeping Bags, Badges and Shoes etc. used by Armed
Forces in India.
c) Direct the respondent to handle the whole responsibility of Manufacturing, Stocking and
Selling of Combat Uniforms, Backpacks, Sleeping Bags, Badges and Shoes etc. used by Armed
Forces in India with immediate effect."
On the 24th of October, 1994, The Ministry of Defence has brought to the notice of this Ministry
that a number of civilians, civil security organisations, etc. have been using service pattern
uniforms, uniform articles and vehicles which are painted similar to defence duty vehicles. The
ex-servicemen employed by various security agencies/private enterprises/shops have been using
9
W.P.(C)11523/2016.
29
olive green uniforms, which is a matter of serious concern. The use of service uniforms by
unauthorised personnel/civilian is also prohibited under Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code
and clause 6 of Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the offence is punishable under these Acts.
Ministry of Defence have again brought to our notice that despite standing instructions, the army
uniforms and accoutrements still continue to be used by various civilian security agencies and
private organisations. This practice not only has an adverse effect on Indian Army image but also
has serious security implications particularly in areas affected by militancy. The use of service
uniform by unauthorised personnel/civilians is also prohibited under Section 140 of IPC and
Clause 6 of Indian Official Secret Act, 1923 and the offence is punishable under these acts." The
counter affidavit, however, contains the admission of the inadequacy of these measures, when it
states that: "... measures taken up by the State Governments towards this end have not had much
visible impact on ground. Combat uniforms with Indian Army Logo are still used by
unauthorised personnel/civilian security agencies and private organizations. Apart from serious
security implications for the country as a whole, this seriously undermines the Army's efforts in
countering terrorism in various affected States. It also tarnishes the image of the Army in the
eyes of the Citizens and Law." In this communication, a reference was made to the earlier letter
dated 1st April, 1986.
We may note that the counter affidavit does not disclose the receipt of any
guidelines/instructions of the State Governments on the important issues flagged in the instant
writ petition.
We also find that the respondent has categorically denied issuance of any guidelines issued by
the Indian Army on 8th January, 2016. The respondents have suggested that it would be the
responsibility of the States/Union Territories to issue guidelines and instructions with regard to
illegal manufacturing, stocking and selling of combat uniforms, backpacks, sleeping bags,
badges and shoes etc. used by the Armed Forces in India as well as use of a service type painted
vehicles by civilians and to take action thereon.
We also find that the counter affidavit does not disclose even a single incidence of initiation of
action either for violation of Section 140 of the IPC or Section 6(1) of the Official Secrets Act,
1923. At the same time, there is a clear admission in the communication from the Ministry of
Home Affairs as well as in the counter affidavit that illegal and unauthorized manufacturing
30
stocking and selling of combat uniforms, backpacks, sleeping bags, badges and shoes etc. used
by Armed Forces in India goes on. The matter flagged by the petitioner is undoubtedly of a
serious nature.
The above narration would also show that despite the order dated 20th July, 2016 passed by this
Court, no steps in accordance thereto appear to have been taken.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent shall
forthwith take steps to ensure compliance with the directions made by the respondent vide
communication dated 1st April, 1986 which was reiterated vide communications dated 24th
October, 1994 and 18th January, 1999.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES UNDER CHAPTER VIII OF THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE, 1860
Cognizable/ Bailable/
Section & Definition under Punishment Triable
Non- Non-
IPC by
cognizable bailable
Life imprisonment/
S.131- Abetment of mutiny & Non- Court of
imprisonment of 10 Cognizable
attempt of seduction of any bailable Session.
years and with fine.
officer, soldier, sailor or airman.
Death/Life
S.132- Abetment of mutiny, if
imprisonment/ Non- Court of
mutiny is committed in Cognizable
imprisonment of 10 bailable Session.
consequence of such abetment.
years and with fine.
S.133- Abetment of an assault by Imprisonment of 3 Magistra

Non-
any officer, soldier, sailor, years and also with Cognizable te First
bailable
airman on superior office. fine. Class.
31
S.134- Abetment of an assault by Magistra
any officer, soldier, sailor, Imprisonment of 7 Non- te of
Cognizable
airman on superior office, if such years and fine. bailable First
assault is committed. Class.
Imprisonment of 2 Any
S.135- Abetment of desertion. years or fine or with Cognizable Bailable Magistra
both. te.
Non-
S.136- Harbouring deserter. years or fine or with Cognizable Magistra
bailable
both. te.
Any
S.137- Deserter concealed on Non-
Penalty of Rs.500. Cognizable Magistra
board merchant vessel. bailable
te.
S.138- Abetment of an act of
months or fine or with Cognizable Bailable Magistra
insubordination.
both. te.
S.140- Wearing garb or carrying Imprisonment of 3 Any

token belonging to soldier, months or a fine of Rs. Cognizable Bailable Magistra
sailor, airman. 500 or with both. te.10
10
M&M 112, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, Pg- 277, (rev. Justice K T Thomas, M A Rashid, 35th ed.
2017).
32
MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Military justice is a system of law created to enforce certain standards of behaviour among
armed forces personnel. Military jurisprudence combines the concept of both justice and
discipline into one workable legal system. The need for discipline is fundamental in the armed
forces. It is discipline that distinguishes the armed forces from a mob. The armed forces are an
important organ of the State specialised in the conduct of warfare. By and large, the study of
military law has been neglected. As Hegel put it: “If laws are to have binding force, it allows
that, in view of the right of self-consciousness, they must be made universally known.”
Speedy trials and predictable decisions aid the military in its efforts to maintain order and
uniformity. In addition to enhancing discipline, order, uniformity, efficiency and obedience, the
military court addresses certain offences unique to the military. Besides offences at the time of
war, other military offences triable by courts-martial are mutiny, desertion, absence without
leave, use of insubordinate language, disobedience, insubordination, ill-treatment of a
subordinate, signing in blank and violation of good order and discipline.
The object of military law id two-fold. First, it provides for the maintenance of good order and
discipline among members of the armed forces and in certain circumstances to others who work
in the military organisation. The second object of the military justice system is the regulation of
various aspects of administration and operational needs.
Military law in India has remained more or less rooted in the past. The three service acts are, in
essence, continuation of the then prevalent system with all its inherent defects. The large number
of cases that have come up before the superior civil courts in recent years have shown that the
judicial system of the defence forces has not only been moving at very slow pace, but has also
not been able to satisfy the aspirations of men in uniform. The recent judgements of the High
courts and the Supreme court have found the existing system of governance and military justice
‘antiquated’, ‘awarding excessively severe and arbitrary punishments’, ‘violative of the
provisions of the army act and rules’ and ‘not in consonance with the liberal spirit of the Indian
Constitution’. A disciplinary system that is perceived of as fair by all servicemen is essential for
33
the recruitment and retention of personnel with the skills required for the maintenance of the
armed forces. No statute, however ably drafted, can be absolutely free from shortcomings, The
laws also grows and needs amendment from time to time. In India, the creation of the tri-service
Strategic Forces Command in 2001 and the uniformity in the functioning of the three services
has made the formulation of a uniform disciplinary code for the three services a necessity. A fair
and just ‘justice delivery system’ is a moral assurance to the people that their constitutional
rights would be protected. It is necessary to ensure that the Armed Forces are not deprived of
these rights, so that the competent and courageous people do not shy away from joining the
forces and military personnel feels assured that they are overseen by an impartial justice delivery
system under the Indian Constitution.
HISTORY OF INDIAN MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Military law in India originated, for the large part, from a union between classical Indian
traditions and the culture imposed by the British Army. The history of military law in India is co-
extensive with that of Indian army created by the British. The early factories established by the
East India Company (EIC) were guarded by Europeans recruited for that purpose. Subsequently,
Indians were enrolled as armed guards or peons with the dual objective of protecting the
factories of the EIC and lending dignity to its principle functionaries. As the factories grew in
size and importance, the peons were organised in a semi-military structure, and gradually
improvements were made in their organisation. From these guards sprang the EIC’s European
and Indian Troops.
From the mid-1700s until August 1947, British regulations, including the Articles of War and the
British Army Act, governed military justice in India. After 1824, a series of regulations restricted
commander’s power. These regulations, entitled ‘Rules and Articles for the better government of
the officers and soldiers in the service of East India Company from the 1st day of January 1841’,
shifted much of the power to punish from the sole discretion of the military commander to a
court-martial panel of officers. A commander wishing to impose substantial punishment was
forced to convene a court-martial.
34
The British clearly wanted to ensure ultimate control and to protect their interest in India.
However, provision was made for the Indians to have a hearing before a court-martial panel
composed of other Indians. But the ultimate control of power to take decisions and implement it
relied with the British commander. Flogging was a common mode of punishment with the
number of lashes increasing with the gravity of the offence.
The mutiny of 1857 caused reconstruction both of British administration and of the British
military system in India. The territories directly administered by the East India Company were
transferred to the Crown under a viceroy. The EIC’s army was incorporated into the British
army. The amendments of the Indian articles of war was taken up again and the Indian Army Act
1911 was passed. It came into force on 1 January 1912, repealing all previous acts on the
subject.
After independence, three separate acts came into force for the governance of the three services-
the Army Act 1950; the Air Force Act, 1950 and the Navy Act, 1957.
Ever since the evolution of social organization, justice has been one of the essential components
of the ideal state. The term ‘justice’ represents a legal, ethical and ontological concept that is as
old as human kind. Cephalus, one of the interlocutors of Socrates, defined justice as ‘honesty in
need and deed’, seeming to equate it with telling the truth and paying back whatever one has
received from another. Thrasymachus defined justice as ‘the interest of the stronger’. In this
sense, ‘just’ is synonymous with ‘lawful’ or ‘legal’, ie, what the ‘customs’ or ‘laws’ of the city
prescribe.
DIFFRNECE BETWEEN THE THREE SERVICE ACTS
 Each of the three service acts is unique in their own regard. In the case of the Air Force
Act, 1950, three types of court-martial apply. These are general court-martial, district
court-martial, and summary general court-martial.11
 The Army Act, in addition to this, has the provision of the summary court-martial which
can try personnel below the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer and can award
punishments of dismissal and imprisonment up to one year. The navy meanwhile has
11
'European Military Law Systems' Chapter - 5, PG-319.
35
only one kind of court-martial during peacetime and also a disciplinary tribunal during
times of war. In contrast to the Army and the Air Force, where the senior-most officer of
the court-martial automatically takes up the position of presiding officer, in the Navy, the
convening authority always nominates the president of the courts-martial.
 In the Navy, the findings and sentence of courts-martial do not require the express
confirmation of the convening authority or any other superior authority and they become
operative the moment a pronouncement is made. This practice is however exempted in
the case of a death sentence which requires prior confirmation from the Central
Government. An acquittal decision is final in the case of the Navy and not subject to
confirmation or revision as it would be in the case of the Army or the Air Force.
 With regard to the Army of the Air Force, the presence of a judge advocate in the district
and summary general court-martial is not mandatory. This, however, is not the case with
the Navy. In the navy, it is required that each and every court-martial is attended by a
Judge advocate. Also, in the Army and the Air Force, the judge advocate remains present
when the court deliberates on the findings; however, in the Navy the presence of a judge-
advocate is not required when the court is considering the findings.
 Furthermore, in the case of the Navy, the commanding officer of a ship may try any
person belonging to the ship immediately without any prior approval for offences that are
not in the genus of a capital offence also the commanding officer is within his rights to
award imprisonment or detention up to a period of three months. This provision,
however, is not applicable to those of an officer rank. Meanwhile, the power of summary
trial is limited in the Army and the Air Force wherein punishment of up to 28 days of
imprisonment can be awarded to persons below the rank of NCO.
 The proceedings of a court-martial or disciplinary court are reviewed by the Judge
Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy either on his own motion or on an application made
by an aggrieved person. The JAG is to transmit the report of the review together with his
recommendations to the Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS) for his consideration. This
process is slightly different in the case of the other two military branches. In the Army
and the Air Force, the officers of the Department of the JAG, before confirmation, review
the proceedings of courts-martial and may make recommendations.
36
 These reviews are advisory and not binding on the Chiefs of the respective Service. One
notable area of commonality is the overarching influence that the will of the various
chiefs of staff hold over the outcome of cases, in contrast to civilian cases which are
centered on the rule of law.
CRITICISMS OF THE SERVICE ACTS
All three acts have garnered quite a bit of criticism from various quarters. Listed below are some
of the most notable of these criticisms.
Absence of Legal provisions for Bail

There is at present no provision of bail for an arrested military person within the provision of the
aforementioned three service acts. The officer charged is essentially at the mercy of his
commanding officer and the authority overseeing his case. While the Supreme Court has clearly
laid out the basis on which bail should be granted, these rules and principles have however yet to
be made applicable with regard to those military personnel that are being held in custody.
Freedom of this nature in granting bail is for all purposes firmly rooted in personal whim, and
there is a high likelihood of it being misused and thus this essentially makes the constitutional
guarantee provided under Article 21 redundant.
Ineffectiveness of Trial in Summary Court Martial (SCM)

This mechanism is not up to the mark nor does it keep with the required standards. This is
because for one, there is no prosecutor and rather intriguing the court takes up some of the
functions that are normally provided by a prosecutor in a traditional court of law. Another
shocking fact is that the accused is not awarded the right to defend himself with the assistance of
a counsel, or any similar entity.
This aspect of military trial is once again an example of how it stands in clear violation of the
provisions enshrined in Article 22 of our Constitution. Moreover there are violations to Article
21 as well. Basically the prescribed procedure for this practice does not fall under the ambit of
what would be commonly considered as fair or reasonable. All this has resulted in there being
numerous instances where the Supreme Court and various high courts across the country have
37
lambasted the decisions made by SCMs. That is, they have often been labelled as being biased,
awarding excessive punishment and also being in clear violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Absence of legal aid provided to the accused

What is probably the most blaring deficiency of the Indian system of military justice is the
absence of experienced legal officers and consuls for the accused. While the Military rules allow
for the accused to take up the services of a civilian lawyer at his own expense or to avail the
services of a defending officer, these provisions are very rarely practiced in reality. That is, it is
very rare for the accused to avail of the services of a civilian lawyer at their own expense.
Furthermore, service officers are all too often inexperienced and even unwilling to commit to
providing counsel for the accused.
There is much to be desired in terms of the persisting infrastructure in place. Furthermore, there
is little incentive provided to defending officers to essentially help and aid accused persons. The
issue is further accentuated by the fact that this task is seen as risky and offering little reward.
The result is that cases that come before the court-martial are not adequately defended, which is
in direct opposition to the frameworks enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution.
Lack of impartiality of members of court martial

A court-martial established under the ambit of military law plays the dual role of coming through
with both the findings and sentence. It is the opinion of experts in the study of military law that
members are often lacking in experiences, qualification and training to fulfill this crucial role.
Furthermore, critics point to the prevalence of the highly disturbing phenomenon that is
“command influence”. This essentially means that decision making is not necessarily
independent or unbiased in the administration of justice. Certain sources claim that members are
given detailed instructions from those who pull the strings in the military. Given that the
immense risk that is posed from disobeying orders in the military, most officers are swayed to
act in a way that is directed to them.
Lack of autonomy afforded to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department

The Judge Advocate (JA) has no role to play, that is, they neither function as an advocate or as a
judge. Therefore for all purposes, any comparison of the JA to the judges in a trial is inaccurate,
38
unless of course in the fact that members of the JAG have to maintain a firmly impartial stance.
The JAG department is within the administrative and functional control of the same executive
who calls for a trial by court-martial and also later reviews the said proceedings. The quality of
advice provided by the JA is central influencing the decision making of the members of the
court-martial. In spite of all this, officers of the JAG are not really autonomous and there are
definite constraints to their freedom to give a fair and unbiased decision as argued by UC Jha.
Double Jeopardy
The constitutional protection provided against the phenomenon of double jeopardy is clearly
enumerated in Article 20(2). While it can be used in a court-martial, the same is not available to
stop a second trial on the same offence before a civil court. That is, for example – a person who
is subject to the provisions of the Air Force Act, who has once been tried and convicted or
acquitted before a court-martial can be tried a second time on the same charges by court of civil
jurisdiction.
Denial of the Right to Appeal

At present there is no real procedure for appeal in response to the findings or the verdict
delivered by the court-martial. However what provides basis for the current regime is listed
in Chapter XII of the Army Act, specifically sections 153 to 165.
These sections enumerate the current subsisting procedure for what is termed as the
‘confirmation’ and ‘revision’ of court-martial directives. In Section 153, it is said that no finding
or sentence of parties like a general, district or summary general, a court-martial can be
constituted as valid unless of course it is confirmed as is enumerated in the Army Act. Next in
Section 160, the revision of a finding or sentence of a court-martial via an order confirming a
decision is passed. Similarly, Section 164 is concerned with the confirmation and the remedy that
is available to those parties against whom a verdict or sentence has been declared. With regard to
a final finding or sentence awarded vis-a-vis a GCM, DCM and SGCM, the remedy that the
accused can opt for is specified in Section 164 (2), what the provision essentially says is that this
can be utilized only once the finding of the sentence is assured or confirmed. The option of
seeking remedy is, therefore, for all purposes unavailable to the person on trial prior to the
confirmation of the sentence.
39
Also, in addition to this, the remedy is more of a formality and is not carried out to the highest
standard. Essentially the aforementioned provision is diluted, and for the most part it takes place
behind closed doors where the accused is denied the right of personal representation. As a result,
in truth there is no real option to appeal against a court-martial order.
In the Landmark Judgement of Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi Etc vs Union of India & Others12
The petitioner in each of the three writ petitions who was to be tried by general court martial for
breach of army discipline questioned the legality and validity of the order convening the general
court martial, more particularly it’s Composition. In the petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that to satisfy the requirements of
Article 33 the law must be a specific law enacted by Parliament in which a specific provision
imposing restriction or even abrogation of fundamental rights should be made; that rule 40 of
the Rules should be so construed as to sub serve the mandate of Article 21 that the Army with
its total commitment to national security against foreign invasion must be assured the prized
liberty of individual members against unjust encroachment and the court should strike a just
balance between military discipline and individual personal liberty; and that principles of
natural justice should be observed even in respect of persons tried by the Army Tribunals.
Dismissing the petitions the court held that the right to appeal was not mandatory in military
cases.
Inadequate powers afforded to the Armed Forces Tribunal

The Armed Forces Tribunal is a military tribunal in India. It was established under the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. While it was initially seen as something that could help greatly
revolutionise the military justice system in India, at present it has largely failed to live up to the
fanfare and hype. A major problem that the AFT faces is a shortage of the required number of
tribunals. As a result of this, there is a lot of delay in the judicial process. Furthermore, there is a
serious case of non-implementation of the final orders which could have provided relief to
litigants. It was observed that the relief and remedy ordered by the tribunal to the aggrieved
servicemen and veteran were merely on paper due to lack of implementation and compliance by
the authorities. A serious lack of adequate contempt power with the tribunals rendered them
incapable of getting their decisions implemented.
12
1982 AIR 1413, 1983 SCR (1) 393.
40
SUGGESTIONS GIVEN BY THE FIFTH LAW COMMISSION’S 42nd REPORT
The Fifth Law Commission was established in 1968 under the Chairmanship of Mr. K. V. K.
Sundaram.13
 With a view to widening the scope of the Chapter, the Law Commission suggested that
the Chapter should not only be confined to Army, Navy and Air Force but should also be
extended to all other armed forces of the Union of India. It, accordingly recommended
the present caption of the Chapter Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air
Force should be changed to Offences Relating to Armed Force and that the key
expressions, ‘armed forces’, ‘officer’ and ‘member’ should be comprehensively defined
in the proposed new S. 130A.
 Referring to the kinds and quantum of punishment provided for abetment to mutiny, not
committed in consequence thereof or otherwise, and for attempt to seduce a defence
personnel (ss. 131 & 132, IPC), it opined that the punishment of imprisonment for life
provided for abetment to mutiny that is not committed in consequence of the abetment
and for an attempt to seduce defence service personnel is unduly harsh. It suggested that
abetment of mutiny by an officer or a member of armed forces should be punished with:
(a) with death or imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term up to
fourteen years (in lieu of the existing ten years), if mutiny is committed in pursuance of
the abetment and (b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term up to ten years, if mutiny is
not committed in pursuance of the abetment. An attempt to seduce an officer or member
of the armed forces from his duty, it opined, should be made punishable by rigorous
imprisonment for a term up to ten years with fine.
 Noticing that s. 135 of the Code, dealing with abetment of desertion, unlike other
provisions of the same chapter, does not distinguish between cases where the abetment of
desertion is successful and where it is unsuccessful and it, in either case, provides for
imprisonment for a term up to two years, the Commission, in the light of punishment
provided for desertion under the Army, the Navy and the Air Force Acts, feels that the
13
42nd Report, Fifth Law Commission of India, Retrieved From: <http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/ 1-
50/Report42.pdf>
41
punishment provided s. 135 be increased to five years’ imprisonment in cases where
desertion takes place in consequence of the abetment.
 It is also recommended an enhancement of punishment (from imprisonment for a term up
to six months to for a term up to two years) in case of abetment of an act of
insubordination when the abetment is success.
 It recommended deletion of existing s. 137, holding the master or a person in charge of a
merchant vessel on board o which a deserter is concealed due to neglect of duty of such a
master or person, as it ‘does not appear to be of any consequence’.
 It suggested that two new provisions, s. 138 A and 138 B, dealing respectively with
inciting mutiny or an act of insubordination and dissuading from recruitment to armed
forces, be added to the present chapter. Both the proposed offences should be made
punishable with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with
fine, or with both.
The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1978, premised on recommendations of the Fifth Law
Commission, gives effect to these proposals for reform. The 14th Law Commission has not only
endorsed the proposed reforms but also approved contents of the 1978 Bill incorporating those
suggestions. However, these proposals are not yet transformed into statutory provisions as the
1978 Amendment Bill lapsed in 1978 due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha during that year.
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
The Army, Navy and Air Force have a certain set of principles for the officers serving in them,
but Chapter VII of the Indian Penal Code is from the perspective of the civilians. This chapter
talks about those offences of abetment which might be committed by a regular citizen in
connection to an official of the defence service. The fundamental objective is to bring discipline
among the officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force under the Government of India. However, it
is somewhat confusing that despite the fact that these offences are made punishable, cannot be
dealt with under the Indian Penal Code.
While the three military acts have succeeded in maintaining a semblance of order in our military
in the years following independence, there is still much left to be desired. The current stance over
42
bail is in urgent need for rectification. Also, it is crucial that in a democracy such as ours the
officer being tried must be offered adequate legal aid and support. Also, the lack of support and
backing given to the Armed Forces Tribunal is a cause for worry. The backlog of cases, lack of
an adequate number of tribunals and resistance to cooperating are all proving to be a sore point
for many veterans who have had their cases delayed for years. Furthermore, there have been calls
for the unification of the three acts into one in recent years; many countries like the US have
already implemented this. If our military fails to keep up with the times, it may risk internal
clashes and collapse all of which is highly undesirable. This is why it is most important that our
military and armed forces stay abreast of the times and don’t fall prey to complacency.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 42nd Report, Fifth Law Commission of India, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/ 1-

50/Report42.pdf.
 'European Military Law Systems' Chapter - 5, PG-319.
 https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/military-justice-system-in-india-2/
 https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/unification-of-the-army-the-navy-and-the-
air-force-act-2/
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-law
 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47
 M&M 112, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, Pg- 277, (rev. Justice K T
Thomas, M A Rashid, 35th ed. 2017).
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, Pg- 277, (rev. Justice K T Thomas, M A
Rashid, 35th ed. 2017).
43

ML SP X

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ML SP X

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISSERTATION

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY……………………………………………...……...5

SCOPE OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………..………5

OFFENCES RELATED TO PERSONNELS OF ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE………8

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES UNDER CHAPTER VIII OF IPC, 1860…………….31

MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM………………………………………………………………33

HISTORY OF MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA…………………………………34

DIFFRENCE BETWEEN THE THREE SERVICE ACTS………………………………….35

CRITICISM OF THE SERVICE ACTS………………………………………………………37

SUGGESTIONS GIVEN BY THE 5TH LAW COMMISSION 42ND REPORT………..……41

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….....42

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled OFFENCES RELATING TO PERSONNELS

VISAKHAPATNAM SIGNATURE OF THE GUIDE

AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

 42nd Report, Fifth Law Commission of India, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/ 1-

Mutiny is a capital offence under Section

Under Section 38, deserting and aiding

Section 138 punishes for an act of An act of insubordination is punishable

OFFENCES RELATING TO THE PERSONNELS OF ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE

Section 131 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 107 of IPC- ABETMENT OF A THING

Punishment under 131 of IPC

Section 132 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof. Whoever abets the

Punishment under 132 of IPC

Section 37 of the Army Act, 1950

Section 42 and 43 of the Indian Navy Act, 1934

Section 37 of the Air Force Act, 1950

ABETMENT OF ASSAULT BY AN OFFICER ON A SUPERIOR OFFICER

Section 133 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

“107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who;

First- By his own bodily power.

Section 134 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 40 of the Army Act, 1950

Section 45 of the Indian Navy Act, 1934

Section 40 of the Air Force Act, 1950

Section135 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 38 of the Army Act, 1950

Section 38 of the Air Force Act, 1950

ABETMENT OF AN ACT OF INSUBORDINATION

Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 42 in the Army Act, 1950

Section 47 of the Indian Navy Act, 1934

Section 42 in the Air Force Act, 1950

PERSONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ACTS

Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES UNDER CHAPTER VIII OF THE INDIAN PENAL

S.133- Abetment of an assault by Imprisonment of 3 Magistra

S.140- Wearing garb or carrying Imprisonment of 3 Any

HISTORY OF INDIAN MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM

DIFFRNECE BETWEEN THE THREE SERVICE ACTS

CRITICISMS OF THE SERVICE ACTS

Absence of Legal provisions for Bail

Ineffectiveness of Trial in Summary Court Martial (SCM)

Absence of legal aid provided to the accused

Lack of impartiality of members of court martial

Lack of autonomy afforded to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department

Denial of the Right to Appeal

Inadequate powers afforded to the Armed Forces Tribunal

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION