1999 (5) TMI 612 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition, Quashing of order in Court Martial Proceedings, Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226, Re-appreciation of evidence in Court Martial Proceedings.

Issue 1: Challenge to Bombay High Court judgment:
The Union of India appealed against the Bombay High Court's judgment quashing the order in Court Martial Proceedings against the respondent. The High Court found the authorities wrong in recording guilt based on the evidence of Mrs. Nirmala Sharma. The High Court's decision was based on re-evaluating the evidence presented during the Court Martial Proceedings.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226:
The main question was the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 over the findings of the Competent Authority in Court Martial Proceedings. The Court discussed that the Navy Act provides a complete procedure for trials by Court Martial, with provisions for further appeals to higher authorities. The High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to checking for violations of mandatory provisions causing miscarriage of justice or principles of natural justice.

Issue 3: Re-appreciation of evidence in Court Martial Proceedings:
The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence in Court Martial Proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is akin to that under Article 227 against an order of an inferior tribunal. In this case, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-assessing the credibility of Mrs. Nirmala Sharma's evidence and concluding that it was insufficient to establish guilt under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the respondent. The Court affirmed the findings of the Competent Authority in the Court Martial Proceedings, stating that the respondent was rightly found guilty of the offence under Section 354 based on the evidence presented.