Read Time: 10 minutes

Referring to Section 15 subsection (4) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Act, the Top Court has held that as per its clause (a), the AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court-martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever.

Court added that under clause (b) of the said provision, it would be permissible for the AFT to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law and under clause (c), the AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court­martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, while relying on Union of India and others vs. Sandeep Kumar and others, Court noted that AFT is entitled to reappreciate evidence to find out if any findings of the court-martial are legally not sustainable due to any reason; or that the finding involves wrong decision on a question of law; or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Two cross­-appeals challenging the judgments and orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional bench, Kochi were filed before the Top Court.

One was filed by the Union of India and others, challenging the judgment of the AFT whereby it had set aside the order of conviction and the sentence of cashiering from service and rigorous imprisonment for one year against one Major R. Metri passed by the General Court Martial (“GCM”) and in turn, had sentenced Metri to the punishment of forfeiture of seniority of the rank of Major and of severe reprimand.

Metri had also challenged the AFT order sentencing him to the punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank and of severe reprimand.

It was alleged that Metri was involved in malpractices of clearing some candidates as medically fit during Recruitment Rallies, who were not otherwise fit and receiving monetary rewards for the same.

Further, it was not in dispute that the GCM had passed the conviction order basically on the confessional statement made by the Metri. Also, the AFT, upon perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, had come to a conclusion that from the circumstances as emerged, it could not be said that Metri's confessional statement was voluntary.  

Dealing with the cross-appeals, the Top Court noted that when Metri allegedly made an oral confession on July 14, 2009 and gave a written statement on July 15, 2009, the news with regard to the recruitment racket was already known to one and all.

Therefore, Court held, "Thus, the AFT’s view that many more persons might be involved in the recruitment scam and in order to find a scapegoat, the possibility of the respondent-­officer being asked to make a confessional statement with an assurance that no action will be taken against him, could not be said to be an impossible view."

“…the extra­judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.  Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified…”, further observed the bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai.

Court also noted that it had appeared from the evidence of the Director, Army Recruitment Centre, Jhunjhunu that Metri was part of a team responsible for the recruitements. 

“It could thus be seen that a single officer like the respondent-­officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit, if he is otherwise not. His evidence would show that the team like the one of which the respondent­-officer was a member, only assists the independent members in the conduct of tests, measurements and the medical examination”, said the Court.

Accordingly, Court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of Union of India. Further, as regards the appeal filed by Metri, the bench found that he had discharged the burden to prove, as to how the said amounts came to be deposited in his account.

As such, that part of the order, which convicted Metri for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Act was also held to be not sustainable. 

Therefore, while acquitting Major Metri of all charges, the bench ordered thus,

“The appellant­ Major R. Metri No.08585N is directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant­ Major R. Metri No.08585N will not be entitled for back­wages for the period during which he was out of employment.”

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs. MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N_0