9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (8) TMI 345 - SC - Indian LawsThe Appellant was officiating as a Major though he held a substantive rank of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27, 1974 he took over as the Officer Commanding 38 Coy. A.S.C. (Sup) Type A attached to the Military Hospital, Jhansi. In August, 1975 the Appellant went to attend a training course and returned in the first week of November. 1975. In his absence Captain G.C. Chhabra was commanding the unit of the appellant and he submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25, 1975 for Rs.16,280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowkidars and sweepers. The said Bill was returned by the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) with certain objections. Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh contingent Bill dated December 25, 1975 for a sum of Rs.7,029.57. In view of the wide difference in the two Contingent Bills, the CDA reported the matter to the Headquarters for investigation and a Court Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses. After considering the said report of the Court of Enquiry the General Officer Commanding, M.P., Bihar and Orissa recommended that severe displeasure (to be recorded) of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Central Command be awarded to the appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement to record reasons by the confirming authority and the Central Government. 2. Right to make a representation before confirmation of findings and sentence. 3. Sufficiency of evidence to support the findings of the court-martial. Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement to Record Reasons by the Confirming Authority and the Central Government: The primary issue addressed was whether the confirming authority and the Central Government are required to record reasons for their decisions when confirming the findings and sentence of a court-martial. The Court examined the legal framework and precedent cases, including Som Datt Datta v. Union of India and Others, which held that there is no statutory obligation for the confirming authority or the Central Government to provide reasons for their decisions. The Court reiterated this stance, emphasizing that while recording reasons ensures fairness and transparency, the Army Act and the Army Rules do not mandate such a requirement. The Court concluded that the confirming authority and the Central Government are not required to record reasons for their decisions. 2. Right to Make a Representation Before Confirmation of Findings and Sentence: The appellant argued that he was denied the right to make a representation before the confirmation of the findings and sentence due to the non-supply of relevant court-martial records. The Court clarified that under Section 164(1) of the Army Act, there is no right to make a representation against the findings or sentence before their confirmation. The right to present a petition under Section 164(2) arises only after the findings and sentence have been confirmed. The Court noted that Rule 147 of the Army Rules supports this interpretation, as it allows for the provision of court-martial records only after confirmation. Therefore, the appellant's claim of being denied the right to make a representation was unfounded. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Findings of the Court-Martial: The appellant challenged the findings of the court-martial on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The Court reviewed the evidence presented during the court-martial proceedings. For the first charge, the Court found substantial evidence, including testimonies from witnesses and corroborative material, supporting the appellant's guilt. Similarly, for the third charge, the Court found that the appellant had knowledge of the improper contingent bill submitted by Captain Chhabra and failed to take appropriate action. The Court concluded that the findings of the court-martial were based on sufficient evidence and were not perverse. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings and sentence of the court-martial, confirming that there was no requirement for the confirming authority or the Central Government to record reasons for their decisions. The appellant's right to make a representation before confirmation was not recognized under the Army Act. The evidence presented during the court-martial was deemed sufficient to support the findings. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
