Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14754
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br /><br />Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br /><br />In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br /><br />The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br /><br />Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br /><br />CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br /><br />CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br /><br />&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br /><br />Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br /><br />The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br /><br />CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br /><br />Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br /><br />CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br /><br />According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14754
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br /><br />Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br /><br />In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br /><br />The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br /><br />Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br /><br />CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br /><br />CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br /><br />&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br /><br />Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br /><br />The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br /><br />CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br /><br />Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br /><br />CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br /><br />According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f4156b5b256-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 14754,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 14878,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 14754
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Law and Justice,Human Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI&#039;s plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &amp;ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &amp;ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&amp;rdquo; warranted their prosecution.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&amp;rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bhan&#039;s submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br /><br />Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br /><br />In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br /><br />The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br /><br />Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br /><br />CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br /><br />CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br /><br />&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br /><br />Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br /><br />The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br /><br />CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br /><br />Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br /><br />CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br /><br />According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 14754,
		'title' => 'How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br />
<br />
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br />
<br />
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br />
<br />
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br />
<br />
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br />
<br />
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br />
<br />
Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br />
<br />
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br />
<br />
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br />
<br />
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br />
<br />
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br />
<br />
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 14878,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 14754,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice,Human Rights',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br /><br />Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br /><br />In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br /><br />The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br /><br />Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br /><br />CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br /><br />CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br /><br />&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br /><br />Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br /><br />The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br /><br />CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br /><br />Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br /><br />CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br /><br />According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 14754,
	'title' => 'How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br />
<br />
Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br />
<br />
In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br />
<br />
The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br />
<br />
Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br />
<br />
CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br />
<br />
Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br />
<br />
The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br />
<br />
CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br />
<br />
Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br />
<br />
CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br />
<br />
According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 1 May, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army/943920/0',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'how-to-try-your-men-accused-of-fake-encounters-sc-asks-army-14878',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 14878,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 14754
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice,Human Rights'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.

A Bench of Justices...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers.<br /><br />Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago.<br /><br />In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said.<br /><br />The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23.<br /><br />Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution.<br /><br />CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of &ldquo;cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment&rdquo;.<br /><br />CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure &ldquo;public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice&rdquo; warranted their prosecution.<br /><br />&ldquo;Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,&rdquo; Bhan had told the Bench.<br /><br />Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent.<br /><br />The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases.<br /><br />CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case.<br /><br />Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions.<br /><br />CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.<br /><br />According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

How to try your men accused of fake encounters, SC asks Army

-The Indian Express The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Army authorities to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts. A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said if Army authorities were not keen on court-martial proceedings, then the CBI could seek sanction from the Centre for prosecution of Army officers. Army personnel were allegedly involved in the killing of seven people in an alleged staged shootout at Pathribal in Jammu and Kashmir 12 years ago. In the event of the accused officers being tried by the regular criminal courts, the Centre shall consider the CBI's plea for sanction within three months, the apex court said. The Bench had reserved its verdict for April 23. Earlier, while concluding their arguments, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the CBI, had reiterated that Army personnel involved in the alleged fake encounter have no immunity from prosecution. CBI had earlier told the special Bench that it was a case of “cold-blooded murder and the accused officials deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment”. CBI had contended that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting the Army personnel and the need to ensure “public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice” warranted their prosecution. “Our investigations have revealed it was a fake encounter and cold-blooded murder. If public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice is to be sustained, the accused officers deserve to be meted out exemplary punishment,” Bhan had told the Bench. Bhan's submission was contrary to the stand taken by Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, who, appearing for Army officers, had said prior sanction was mandatory for prosecuting the personnel who otherwise were innocent. The Defence Ministry and CBI have differed on the issue of immunity enjoyed by the Army under the controversial AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and other regular laws in encounter killing cases. CBI had maintained the expression used in Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives immunity to Army personnel for encounters killings, was not available to the accused officers in the present case. Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, on behalf of the Centre, had denied the allegations of fake encounter and argued they enjoyed protection in discharge of their official functions. CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 people allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000. According to CBI, though the right to immunity under 197 CrPC was available to the officers, in the present case it has not been sought by the accused but by senior Defence Ministry officers, which was contrary to the law.