Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

S.K. JHA COMMODRE versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

Decided
11 January 2011
Judges listed
H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 295 · 2011 INSC 28
Also cited as
  • (2011) 15 SCC 492 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties in extenso.

p. 296, margin C

It is clear to us that the judgment of the High Court is in conformity with the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Som Dutt Datta vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR (1969) SC 414. The Constitution Bench while construing Rule 3 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules 1978 read with Sec. 549 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 475 of the Cr.P.C.) held that the option as to whether the accused be tried before the Criminal Court or by a Court Martial could be exercised only after the Police had completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet and that the provisions of the Rule could not be invoked in a case where the police had merely started an investigation against a personnel subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law. The facts of the present case indicate that three Naval Officers were arrested on 10th January, 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 307, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. and some other penal laws. They were

p. 296, margin C

produced before the Magistrate on the 11th January, 2008 who remanded them to judicial custody. An application was filed on the 14th January, 2008 by the Commanding Officer of the Naval Unit to which they belonged for handing over the-accused for trial under the Navy Act, 1957. This application was rejected by the Magistrate holding that the stage of consideration of the application would arise only on the completion of the police investigation which was still at a preliminary stage and that the request of the Commanding Officer was premature. The order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court of Kerala in revision. This too has been dismissed on similar grounds. We see from the facts that the observations of the Constitution Bench apply fully to the facts herein. The stage at which the option can be exercised by the Commanding Officer (as to whether the accused should be tried before a Court Martial or a Criminal Court) cannot be examined at this stage as the investigation has not been completed and a chargesheet has yet to be submitted.

pp. 296–297, margin F

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. D.G. Appeal dismissed.

p. 297, margin C