Army Act, 1950 – s.63 – Violation of good order and discipline – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.15 – Jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters of appeal against court martial – Appellant-Army officer tried by General Court Martial on three charges-civil offence u/s.5(2) of 2006 Act rw s.69 of the 1950 Act, with regard to alleged acceptance of money from complainant; civil offence u/s.3 of Arms Act rw s.25(1B) and s.69 of the 1950 Act, with regard to alleged possession of ammunition; and act prejudicial to good order and military discipline u/s.63 of the Act with regard to unexplained possession of certain amount – GCM found the appellant guilty of charge Nos. 1 and 2, however, acquitted of charge No.3 – Tribunal held charge No.1 (corruption) not proved; that conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act not sustainable as evidence did not support possession of ammunition without license, and substituted the finding on the same charge and held the appellant guilty u/s.63, an act prejudicial to good order and discipline; and on charge No. 3 upheld the acquittal of the appellant – Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits – Correctness:
Held: Factual foundation brought on record at the trial, clearly discloses an act or omission on the part of the appellant which is prejudicial to good order and military discipline – Twin condition for invocation of s.63 fulfilled, on basis thereof, the appellant could lawfully have been convicted u/s.63 – Scope of interference in an appeal with the order passed by the tribunal is limited – This Court in appellate jurisdiction would interfere if the order is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious – Tribunal u/s.15(6) of the 2007 Act, has power to substitute the finding of Court Martial, a finding of guilty of any other offence for which offender could have been lawfully found guilty by Court Martial and may pass a sentence afresh – On facts, the tribunal in exercise of its power u/s.15(6), on the established fact of recovery of ammunition from the possession of the appellant, took a lenient view in favour of the appellant and modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits – Tribunal exercised its discretion u/s.15(6) in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual – Tribunal acted strictly within the statutory framework – Said exercise of discretion, thus, does not call for any interference – Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant – Army Rules – r.62 (4) – J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. [Paras 26, 27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.