Tribunal May Substitute Court‑Martial Findings Under Section 15(6) But Substitution Must Be Lawfully Sustainable, Supreme Court Holds

A bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe heard an appeal by Colonel S.K. Jain against an Armed Forces Tribunal judgment which had set aside convictions under the Arms Act and re‑found him guilty under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 and reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The appeal challenged the substitution of conviction and the imposition of compulsory retirement and arose from a General Court Martial conviction and subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s power under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to substitute findings and pass fresh sentences where legally permissible, while emphasising the limited scope for interference by this Court. The Court noted that concurrent findings of fact as to recovery of ammunition from the appellant’s office had not been shown to be perverse and that the facts reasonably supported a finding of an "act prejudicial to good order and military discipline." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further observed that the Tribunal had taken a "lenient view" by modifying dismissal to compulsory retirement.

Background The appellant, commissioned in the Army Ordnance Corps and posted as Commandant of Northern Command Vehicle Depot, Udhampur, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges: alleged acceptance of Rs.10,000 (corruption), unlawful possession of ammunition in contravention of the Arms Act, 1959, and unexplained possession of Rs.28,000 amounting to an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act. The GCM found him guilty on the corruption and ammunition charges and acquitted him on the cash charge, awarding dismissal from service. Post‑confirmatory remedies were pursued before authorities and the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after reviewing evidence including witness testimony and material exhibits relating to recovery of aged ammunition from the appellant’s office, held there was no proof of demand or acceptance of a bribe and that strict application of the Arms Act was inappropriate on the facts. It concluded that the recovered ammunition, though aged, was capable of discharge and that the failure to follow disposal and accounting procedures constituted neglect amounting to an "act prejudicial to good order and military discipline." Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the conviction under Section 69 read with the Arms Act and substituted conviction under Section 63, reducing the sentence from dismissal to compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits and directed compliance within a time frame. The Tribunal’s review petition was dismissed. The High Court declined to grant relief, and this Court, after considering submissions, found no ground to interfere, observing that the Tribunal had acted within the statutory framework and that the two prerequisites for substitution under Section 15(6) were satisfied. The appeal was dismissed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1215 (Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016) Case Title: S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment