2008 (7) TMI 1019 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the General Court-Martial (GCM) convening authority.
2. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for judicial review of GCM proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of the General Court-Martial (GCM) convening authority:
The appellant contended that the GCM was convened in violation of Section 109 of the Army Act, 1950, arguing that it was not convened by a competent authority. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that under Section 109, a GCM may be convened by the Central Government, the Chief of the Army Staff, or any officer empowered by warrant of the Chief of the Army Staff. The Court noted that a general warrant had been issued by the Chief of the Army Staff empowering officers commanding the 16 Corps to convene GCMs. The order convening the GCM in this case was found to be in compliance with Section 109.

2. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction:
The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence proving his guilt u/s 63 of the Army Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the GCM proceedings, citing a lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the confessional statements. However, the Supreme Court found that the GCM proceedings were conducted fairly, with the appellant given full opportunity to defend himself. The Court noted that the appellant had made a voluntary written confessional statement before the GCM, admitting the allegations. The GCM had considered the oral evidence of material witnesses and the appellant's confessional statements, finding him guilty of the charge.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for judicial review of GCM proceedings:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by the GCM. Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision itself. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the learned Single Judge's order, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. IC 14827 Major A. Hussain, which emphasized that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence recorded by the authorities and substitute its own findings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the Division Bench's decision, which had set aside the learned Single Judge's order. The appeal was dismissed, and the GCM's conviction and sentence were affirmed.