The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial intervention in military proceedings, the application of principles of natural justice, and the exercise of discretion by the army authorities in trying offences under the Army Act.

1. The petitioner was serving as a Major (Substantive) in 116 Medium Regiment attached to 18 Field Regiment in regular Indian Army on permanent commission. The said Regiment was detailed in the month of Oct/Nov 1982 in village Ramsar, District Barmer (Rajasthan) for exercise. At that time, the petitioner was officiating as the Commanding Officer of the Regiment. On the basis of complaints received by the Police about stealing of Goats and Sheeps belonging to villagers of that area, a court of enquiry was held and a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner containing five charges. Two of them were under Section 69 of the Army Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act) while the rest three were under Section 63 of the Act. In fact, some of the Goats/Sheeps stolen were sold which were apprehended by the Police after the Complaints were lodged and were even identified by the owners. The petitioner was thus sent for trial by a General Court Martial (for short GCM) convened by the GOC of the area.

2 The Charge sheet served upon the petitioner reads as under: “The accused IC-1564 of Major (Substantive) Ahluwalia Manjeet Singh of 116 Medium Regiment attached to 18 Field Regiment Officer holding permanent commission in the Regular Army, is charged with:- FIRST CHARGE COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS TO SAY, ARMY ACT THEFT, CONTRARY TO SECTION 379 OF THE SECTION 69 INDIAN PENAL CODE in that he, at Field, on 19 Nov 82, committed theft of 84 sheep/goats belonging to the following civilians:- No. of sheep/goats a) Shri Durgaram 23 b) Shri Matar Khan 20 c) Shri Jusuf 20 d) Shri Khartharam 8 e) Shri Masoof Khan 3 f) Shri Durga 1 g) Shri Lunga 1 h) Shri Prema Ram 1 i) Shri Bachhu 1 j) Shri Suleman 1 k) Shri Isha Khan 1 l) Shri Chela Ram 1 m) Shri Mana Ram 1 n) Shri Bhura Ram 1 o) Shri Babu 1 Total 84 SECOND CHARGE COMMITTING OF A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS ARMY ACT TO SAY, THEFT, CONTRARY TO SECTION 379 SECTION 69 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE in that he, at Field, on 21 Nov 82, committed theft of 123 sheep/goats belonging to the following civilians:- No. of sheep/goats a) Shri Sher Singh 38 b) Shri Sumar 38 c) Shri Rama 23 d) Shri Khoum Singh 19 e) Shri Govardhan Dan 5 123 THIRD CHARGE AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY, ARMY ACT DISCIPLINE SECTION 63 in that he, at Field, on 07 Nov 82, being the officiating officer commanding of 116 Medium Regiment, improperly caused 51 sheep/goats be lifted by his jawans and sold them well knowing that the same were the property of nearby villagers. FOURTH CHARGE AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND ARMY ACT MILITARY DISCIPLINE SECTION 63 in that he, at Field, on 07 Nov 82, being the officiating officer commanding of 116 Medium Regiment, misused vehicles BA NO. 81D-45050H 1 x Lorry 3 Ton SHAKTIMAN, the property of the Government for transportation of 51 sheep/goats from operational location BARMER to DHRANGADHRA FOR 434 KM. FIFTH CHARGE AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY, ARMY ACT DISCIPLINE SECTION 69 in that he, at Field, on 19 Nov 82, being the officiating officer commanding of 116 Medium Regiment, misused 2 X Lorry 3 ton SHAKTIMAN vehicles BA No. 81D-45149M and 81D.45015 L the property of the Government for transportation of 84 sheep/goats from operational location at BARMER TO AHMEDABAD for 439 KM.”

3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. A complete trial was held in which the petitioner fully participated by cross examining the witnesses and also by leading defence and was held guilty of all the charges except the first one. The GCM sentenced the petitioner with the punishment of “cashiering” from service and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. Pre- confirmation petition of the petitioner dated 12.12.1983 against the verdict of the GCM was rejected on 16.5.1984. The findings and sentences awarded by the GCM were confirmed but the unexpired portion of the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment was remitted. Thereafter the remaining sen