Can an Armed Forces Tribunal Substitute a Court-Martial’s Conviction to an Offence under Section 63 of the Army Act under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that an AFT’s substitution power under Section 15(6)(a) of the 2007 Act includes conviction for a different offence lawfully sustainable on the same evidence.
• Clarifies that Section 15(6) is in pari materia with Section 162 of the Army Act and akin to Section 222 CrPC.
• Emphasises that appellate interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or caprice.
• Confirms that concurrent factual findings on unauthorized ammunition possession satisfy the elements of an offence under Section 63 (prejudicial to good order and discipline).
• Demonstrates proper exercise of discretion in mitigating punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement under Section 15(6)(b).

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Sections 69 and 70 of the Army Act: Section 69 creates a fiction treating civil offences as military offences unless expressly excluded by Section 70.
2. Section 63 of the Army Act applies to unspecified acts prejudicial to good order and discipline.
3. Section 15(4) of the AFT Act permits appeal against legally unsustainable findings or material irregularities; proviso allows dismissal if no miscarriage of justice.
4. Section 15(6)(a) & (b) empower the Tribunal to substitute convictions for any offence lawfully sustainable on the trial record and to remit, mitigate, or commute punishment.
5. Section 15(6) is akin to Section 162 of the Army Act and Section 222 CrPC, reflecting legislative intent to allow appellate substitution for cognate offences.
6. Scope of interference under Section 30 of the AFT Act is narrow—limited to arbitrariness or caprice (Union of India & Ors. v. R. Karthik).
7. Concurrent factual findings established unlawful possession of ammunition; no challenge to perverse findings.
8. Substitution to Section 63 was lawful and the reduction of punishment proportionate; no error in Tribunal’s exercise of discretion.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellant:

• Tribunal erred in substituting conviction under Section 63 when appellant was not found guilty under the Arms Act.
• No evidence of motive or unlawful purpose justifying Section 63 conviction.
• Punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate and erroneously imposed.
• Review application dismissal was incorrect.

Respondents:

• Possession of ammunition without authority was proved; substitution under Section 15(6)(a) was lawful.
• Tribunal has identical powers to a Court Martial under Section 15; exercise of substitution power was valid.
• Compulsory retirement is a proportionate punishment.

Factual Background

Colonel S.K. Jain, as Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot (NCVD), had aged ammunition stored in his office. On 27 September 2008, a Board of Officers recovered seven rounds of 7.62 mm and three rounds of 9 mm ammunition from his premises. A General Court Martial convicted him under Section 69 of the Army Act read with the Arms Act. The Armed Forces Tribunal quashed the Arms Act conviction and substituted a conviction under Section 63, modifying the sentence from dismissal to compulsory retirement.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 63, Army Act 1950: covers unspecified acts prejudicial to good order and discipline.
• Section 69, Army Act 1950: legal fiction deeming civil offences as military offences, subject to Section 70 exclusions.
• Section 70, Army Act 1950: certain serious civil offences not triable by Court Martial.
• Section 15, AFT Act 2007: defines Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction; sub-section 4 allows appeal on unsustainable findings; sub-section 6(a) & (b) authorise substitution of convictions and mitigation of sentences.
• Analogy with Section 162 of the Army Act and Section 222 CrPC underlines substitution power.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed