Supreme Court of India
COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 2 August 2019
COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSM
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019)
AUGUST 02, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Ranbir Penal Code, 1932:
s. 497 – Constitutional validity of – Held: The provision u/s.497 is pari materia provision to s. 497 IPC, which has been declaredas unconstitutional in *Joseph Shine case – Therefore, the provision(s. 497 of RPC) is held violative of part III of the Constitution –Nothing survives against the accused on the charges relatable to s.497 – Appeal allowed – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 497 – Constitutionof India – Part III.
Army Act, 1950:
s. 63 – Prosecution under – Accused already acquitted,subject to confirmation – Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal isset aside – Confirmation proceedings may go on and reach its logicalconclusion – Appeal allowed.
*Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 :
[2018] 11 SCR 765 – followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3204of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the ArmedForces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in OriginalApplication No. 450 of 2017
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. SahrdhaAgarwal, Elam Pradi, R. P. Chhibber, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs.for the Appellant.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Bharat Singh, Arvind KumarSharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
157
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
3
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and havingperused Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, applicable to theState of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of the view that, given our judgmentBin Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, the pari materiaprovision contained in Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code be alsodeclared as violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. The sentence“In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor”, which doesnot occur in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand byCitself in view of the fact that the expression used is ‘In such case’. Theentire Section is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. The factthat this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is the exact oppositeof the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that containedin the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence.
D
2. We are, therefore, of the view that nothing survives against theappellant on charges relatable to Section 497 Penal Code. So far asSection 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, the appellant has alreadybeen acquitted, subject to confirmation. The Armed Forces Tribunaljudgment dated 08.01.2019 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal standsEallowed.
3. However, it is made clear that the confirmation proceedings, sofar as the offence under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned,may go on and reach its logical conclusion.
F
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
G
H