S.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA
Supreme Court of India
2025 INSC 1215
Discusses interpretation of statutes, scope of appellate review, and powers of tribunals to substitute findings.
Legal Discussion:
- The Army Act, 1950: The judgment discusses several sections of the Army Act, 1950. Section 3(ii) defines "civil offence". Section 59 prescribes offences relating to Court Martial. Section 63, titled "Violation of good order and discipline", is central to the appeal; it applies to acts or omissions not specified in the Act but prejudicial to good order and military discipline, punishable by court-martial. Section 69 deals with "Civil offences", stating that any person subject to the Act committing a civil offence is deemed guilty under the Act and triable by court-martial, punishable as per clauses (a) and (b) of the same section. Section 70 states "Civil offences not triable by court-martial", specifying exceptions like murder or culpable homicide against non-military personnel, unless committed on active service, outside India, or at a frontier post. The judgment analyzes the interplay between Sections 69 and 70, noting Section 69's subjection to Section 70. The court also notes that Section 63 applies to acts or omissions not specified in the Act. The Tribunal substituted the conviction under Section 69 with Section 63. The judgment also mentions Section 162 of the 1950 Act as being in pari materia with Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
- The Arms Act, 1959: The judgment refers to Section 3 and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, in relation to the second charge against the appellant, which involved possession of ammunition without authority. The appellant was initially found guilty under these sections by the GCM. However, the Tribunal found the conviction under the Arms Act unsustainable because the evidence did not support possession of ammunition without a license.
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, is discussed in detail. This section deals with jurisdiction, powers, and authority in matters of appeal against court martial. Section 15(4) provides grounds for allowing an appeal, including legally unsustainable findings, wrong decisions on questions of law, or material irregularities causing miscarriage of justice. The first proviso to Section 15(4) allows the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal if no miscarriage of justice is likely. Section 15(6)(a) empowers the Tribunal to "substitute for the findings of the court martial, a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh". Section 15(6)(b) allows the Tribunal to remit, mitigate, or commute the sentence if it is excessive, illegal, or unjust. The judgment notes that Section 15(6) contains a non-obstante clause. The court also discusses Section 30 of the 2007 Act, stating that the scope of interference in an appeal under this section is well settled, and the court would be slow to interfere with the substituted punishment unless the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be arbitrary. Section 31 is mentioned as the section under which leave to appeal was sought.
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (J&K): The judgment mentions Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, as part of the first charge against the appellant, related to criminal misconduct and obtaining a bribe.
- Army Rules: Rule 62(4) of the Army Rules is mentioned. The respondent's counsel argued that the Tribunal did not err in applying this rule.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mentioned as being akin to Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, permitting conviction for a lesser or cognate offence on the same set of facts.
List of Laws: The Army Act, 1950; The Arms Act, 1959; Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (J&K); Army Rules; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973