Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
S.K. Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016
Decided On : 10-10-2025
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Section 15 – Army Act, 1950 – Sections 63, 69 and 70 – Army Rules, 1950 – Section 62(4) – Compulsory retirement from service by way of punishment – Concurrent findings of fact with regard to recovery of ammunition from possession of appellant, have been recorded after meticulous appreciation of evidence on record – Factual foundation brought on record at trial, clearly discloses an act or omission on part of appellant which is prejudicial to good order and military discipline – Twin conditions for invocation of Section 63 of 1950 Act are fulfilled in instant case – Appellant on the basis of facts proved, could lawfully have been convicted under Section 63 of 1950 Act – Scope of interference in appeal with order passed by Tribunal is limited – Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 15(6) of 2007 Act, on established fact of recovery of ammunition from possession of appellant, has taken a lenient view in favour of appellant and has modified punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits – Tribunal has exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of 2007 Act in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing disciplinary needs of service with fairness to individual – Order passed by Tribunal affirmed. (Paras 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 and order dated 03.09.2012 passed in O.A. No. 445 of 2010 and R.A. No. 34 of 2012 by Armed Forces Tribunal. Tribunal by impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 substituted conviction of appellant in respect of charge for alleged possession of ammunition and held him guilty of an act prejudicial to good order and discipline. Tribunal convicted appellant under Section 63 of Army Act, 1950. Tribunal by impugned order dated 03.09.2012, dismissed petition for review filed by appellant.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal has acted strictly within statutory framework. Aforesaid exercise of discretion, therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal. The Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 and order dated 03.09.2012 passed in O.A. No. 445 of 2010 and R.A. No. 34 of 2012 by Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”). The Tribunal by impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 substituted conviction of appellant in respect of charge for alleged possession of ammunition and held him guilty of an act prejudicial to good order and discipline. The Tribunal convicted the appellant under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “1950 Act”). The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 03.09.2012, dismissed the petition for review filed by the appellant.
2. In order to appreciate the challenge of the appellant to the impugned judgment and order, relevant facts need mention, which are set out as under.
(I) FACTS
3. The appellant was commissioned into Army Ordnance Corps of Indian Army. He was, on 27.08.2006, promoted as Colonel (Selection Grade) and was posted as Commandant of Northern Command Vehicle Depot, (NCVD) Udhampur. The appellant was handling motorcycles (Royal Enfield) intake in the command after the inspection test. One Shri Sumesh Magotra, a contractor from M/s Vivek Motors, Udhampur, (complainant) met the appellant on 17.09.2008 in NCVD. The appellant demanded Rs.100/- per motorcycle for passing the same in the inspection test. The complainant after four days met Commanding Officer of Northern Command, Counter Intelligence Unit, and explained the difficulty faced by him. Thereafter, the complainant again met the aforesaid Commanding Officer between 20th to 23rd September, 2008 wherein he again narrated the harassment faced by him. The complaint disclosed to the Commanding Officer that he was under pressure to make a payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash to the appellant and was due to make payment on 27.09.2008. The complainant thereupon made photocopies of twenty currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each which were included in hundred numbers of Rs.100/- denomination currency notes.
4. The complainant on 27.09.2008 between 10.00 AM to 10.15 AM went to office of NCVD where he handed over an envelope containing currency notes of Rs.10,000/-. A search was carried out by Board of Officers and during the search, the appellant was given an offer to frisk and search the Board of Officers team, which he declined. In the search, a white envelope containing hundred numbers of Rs.100/- denomination notes was found by Havildar D.K. Singh, which was kept under the computer table in the office of the appellant. The Board of Officers also found a sum of Rs.28,000/- kept in the briefcase of the appellant which was also kept in the office. The Board of Officers further found ammunition from the possession of the appellant. An investigation was carried out wherein a prima facie case was found against the appellant. He was thereafter arrested.
(a) The Charges
5. The appellant was tried by a General Court Martial (GCM). The proceeding before the GCM commenced on 18.12.2008 and concluded on 26.03.2009. The appellant was tried for the following three charges :-
(b) Second Charge : Under Army Act Section 69, “Committing a civil offence, that is to say being in possession of ammunition in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act 1959, contrary to Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959. In that he, on 27.09.2008, the applicant was found in possession of the following ammunition without any authority.
Description of Ammunition Lot No. Qty
| Description of Ammunition | Lot No. |
|
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
