1997 (12) TMI 650 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal, Remands for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment except for Charge No. 9. The Court Martial's sentence was also set ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.2. Admissibility of evidence under Army Rules and Evidence Act.3. Findings and reasons of the Court Martial on Charges 2, 3, 8, and 9.4. Sentence awarded by the Court Martial.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its power of judicial review under Article 226 by reappreciating evidence, which should be limited to ensuring that judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals do not exceed their statutory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cited precedents like Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, H.S. and I.E. Board, U.P. v. Bagleshwar, Parry & Co. v. Judge, 2nd I.T. Cal., and Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. to assert that the High Court can interfere only in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice.2. Admissibility of Evidence under Army Rules and Evidence Act:The High Court held that certain documents and oral evidence were inadmissible, citing Rule 182 of the Army Rules and Section 94 of the Evidence Act. However, the Supreme Court found these interpretations erroneous. Rule 182 excludes only the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry and related statements, which did not apply to the letter Ex. Q-10. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 94 pertains to plain language in documents and does not preclude explaining admissions made in documents, as supported by precedents like Naqubai v. B. Shama Rao.3. Findings and Reasons of the Court Martial on Charges 2, 3, 8, and 9:- Charge No. 2: The respondent was found guilty of making a false statement in a document. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in excluding Ex. Q-10 and not considering the Court Martial's findings based on substantial evidence.- Charge No. 3: The respondent was found guilty of making another false statement. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on Section 94 of the Evidence Act to exclude oral evidence erroneous, reiterating that admissions can be explained by signatories.- Charge No. 8: The respondent was found guilty of fraudulent payments. The Supreme Court upheld the Court Martial's findings, rejecting the High Court's exclusion of oral evidence for the same reasons as in Charge No. 3.- Charge No. 9: The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the charge was vague and did not fall under the relevant Army regulations. Therefore, the charge was unsustainable.4. Sentence Awarded by the Court Martial:The Supreme Court noted that the sentence awarded by the Court Martial was based on findings on all four charges. Since Charge No. 9 was unsustainable, the sentence needed reconsideration based on the remaining three charges. The matter was remanded to the Court Martial for appropriate sentencing.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment except for its conclusion on Charge No. 9. The sentence awarded by the Court Martial was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Court Martial for reconsideration of the sentence based on Charges 2, 3, and 8. The Supreme Court also recommended initiating proceedings against certain witnesses who admitted to signing or preparing official records on the respondent's directions without verification.