The case of Lieutenant General SK Sahni
A three-star general was convicted by a court martial and sentenced
to cashiering and three years imprisonment on charges triggered by an anonymous
complaint for corruption in procuring rations for the military. The sentence
was challenged before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) but the tribunal, while
upholding the conviction, reduced it to “dismissal from service”. The tribunal
however recorded that there was no specific evidence that the actions of the
officer had led to wrongful loss or gain to any person. Setting aside the conviction
of the General and the order of the AFT, the Supreme Court observed:
“The learned AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. The finding as recorded by the learned AFT is totally contrary to the material placed on record”
The General has been directed to be reinstated notionally
(since he had already crossed the age of superannuation) but with all
consequential benefits.
More details and a news-report on the case can be accessed
here.
The case of Major R Metri
In this case, an officer of the rank of Major was convicted
of corruption during recruitment process of enlisted soldiers. The officer was
awarded cashiering from service with one year imprisonment. On appeal to the
AFT, the tribunal set-aside the conviction on charges of corruption but held
him guilty under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 (violation of good order and
discipline). On appeal, the Supreme Court has held that the entire conviction
of the officer was based upon an extra-judicial confession (a confession made before
an authority which is not ‘judicial’ in nature) which could not be corroborated
with any evidence and has acquitted him of all charges and directed his
reinstatement into the military with continuity in service.
A report on the case can be accessed here.
Many thanks for this post, Major Navdeep Singh. The willingness of the Supreme Court of India to weigh in on courts-martial is in stark contrast to the difficulty of securing review by the Supreme Court of the United States of decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
ReplyDelete