Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss.30 and 31 – Court Martial proceedings – Charges pertained to the alleged obscene calls purportedly made by the respondent to the three ladies who were wives of three officers of navy – Finding of guilt – Dismissal from service as well as forfeiture of 24 calender months of seniority – Armed Force Tribunal (AFT) maintained the conviction on certain charges, however, found that punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the nature of the charges – Aggrieved Union of India and the officer both appealed – Held: The prosecution was able to prove that mobile phone used for making offending calls was with the respondent during the relevant period – Further, the prosecution was able to prove that sexually explicit calls were received by the wives of the three officers – The charges were proved and the AFT also recorded the evidence and approved the finding – Appeal before Supreme Court is limited on the quantum of sentence given by AFT – After setting aside the sentence of dismissal from service, the AFT has substituted the same by the sentence of loss of seniority for 24 months – Further, while directing reinstatement in service, the AFT also ordered that the respondent shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the period from the date when he was dismissed from the service till the date of reinstatement, if it is within three months from the date of order of the AFT – The respondent has not been reinstated in service as this court had, stayed the operation of the said order/direction – For all these reasons, the order of the Tribunal is not interfered with on sentence inasmuch the effect is that not only seniority of the respondent is forfeited by 24 months, he is also deprived of his salary for more than five years – Such a sentence would meet the ends of justice and in these circumstances discretion exercised by the Tribunal is not interfered with – Navy Act, 1957 – s.77(2) – Service law – Armed Forces – Sentence.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the officer as well as the appeal filed by Union of India, the Court
HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to give satisfactory proof to prove that when the offending calls in question were made, the Cell Phone with Mobile No. 9564784782 was with the respondent. [Para 14] [816-C]
2. In order to prove that sexually explicit calls were received by the wives of the three officers, the prosecution produced these ladies as PW-9, PW-12 and PW-18. They explained in detail having received these calls and the offending language. To show that the calls were received from the said phone which belongs to the respondent, the prosecution had produced Call Data Record (CDR) of NOFRA land line numbers. The Officer-in-Charge of NOFRA who appeared as PW-3 probe the said CDRs of NOFRA Telephone Exchange showing that all the calls had originated from Mobile No. 9564784782. He also produced certificate issued by him to the effect that the land line numbers of the three female victims were provided by the NOFRA Telephone Exchange. He specifically deposed that true and correct call records have been produced and there is no reason to disbelieve that. There was no discrepancies in the CDR produced by Vodafone before the AFT. [Paras 15, 23] [816-D-E; 826-C]
3. Once the charges are proved in the court martial conducted by the authorities and the AFT also has given its imprimatur to the same by putting its stamp of approval, that too, after recording the evidence, with detailed analyses thereof, it is not the function of this Court to revisit the entire evidence to find out as to whether the finding of the authorities below are correct or not. The instant proceedings are in the form of appeal preferred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and, therefore, the Court is examining the matter as an appellate authority. However, the scope of such appeal is limited. A combined reading of Section
30 and 31 clearly brings out that appeal to this Court has to be on a point of law on general public importance. The limited scope of this appeal is to be on the quantum of sentence given by the AFT. After setting aside the sentence of dismissal from service, the Tribunal has substituted the same by the sentence of loss of seniority for 24 months. Further, while directing reinstatement in service, the Tribunal has also ordered that the respondent shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the period from the date when he was dismissed from the service till the date of reinstatement, if it is within three months from the date of order of the Tribunal. The respondent has not been reinstated in service as this court had, stayed the operation of the said order/direction. Thus, the respondent is still out of service and, therefore, lost his salary from the date of the order of the Tribunal which was passed on March 04, 2015. The respondent was dismissed from service by orders dated January 26, 2013. For all these reasons, the order of the Tribunal is not interfered with on sentence inasmuch the effect is that not only seniority of the respondent is forfeited by 24 months, he is also deprived of his salary for more than five years. Such a sentence would meet the ends of justice and in these circumstances discretion exercised by the Tribunal did not need any interference. [Paras 25, 26, 29, 30] [826-E-F; 828-A, C-F]
Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC
570 ; United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran and Another (1997) 4 SCC 741 : [1997] 2 SCR 756 – referred to.
Shafhi Mohammad. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2018) 2 SCC 801 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.