Supreme Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal’s Power to Substitute Conviction under Army Act:

Supreme Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal’s Power to Substitute Conviction under Army Act The appellant, a Colonel in the Army Ordnance Corps, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges, demanding Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification, unlawful possession of ammunition, and holding Rs. 28,000 in cash without explanation. The Court Martial found him guilty on the first two counts and imposed dismissal from service. Both pre- and post-confirmation petitions of the appellant were rejected. Aggreived, he approached the AFT. AFT Held: The Tribunal found no evidence of bribery or unlawful intent in the ammunition possession charge. The ammunition recovered was old stock and the Court noted that the appellant had failed to follow proper procedures for disposal and accounting. Applying Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal replaced the conviction from Section 69 to Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, which relates to an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The dismissal penalty was modified to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. Central Issue: Whether the substitution of the conviction u/s. 69 of the Army Act to Section 63 and reducing the punishment to compulsory retirement under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, by AFT was lawful and justified? SC's Judgment: The SC upheld the Tribunal’s order, holding that Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act empowers the Tribunal to substitute a conviction for another offence that could lawfully be found on the same evidence. The Bench noted that the Tribunal’s finding was based on established recovery of ammunition, but without proof of mens rea or unlawful intent necessary for an Arms Act offence. Therefore, conviction under Section 63 was appropriate. The Tribunal can substitute a conviction for a related offence if the evidence supports such a charge and the original Court Martial could lawfully have done so. It explained that the acts not expressly covered under the Army Act but prejudicial to military discipline fall under Section 63. Evidence of ammunition recovery was uncontroverted, and no perversity was shown in findings of the Tribunal or GCM. The Court concluded that the Tribunal acted within statutory powers, and the exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor unjust. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below