2011 (9) TMI 1239 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the General Court Martial proceedings.
2. Specificity and sufficiency of charges under Section 52(f) of the Army Act.
3. Interpretation of "intent to defraud" under Section 52(f) of the Army Act.
4. Procedural fairness and opportunity for defense.

Summary:

1. Legality of the General Court Martial proceedings:

The appeal by Union of India challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the General Court Martial's proceedings, findings, and sentence against the first Respondent. The General Court Martial had awarded Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for one year and cashiering to the first Respondent for fraudulent activities during his tenure as Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment.

2. Specificity and sufficiency of charges under Section 52(f) of the Army Act:

The Respondent was charged under Section 52(f) of the Army Act for countersigning contingent bills to claim unauthorized modification grants for vehicles. The Division Bench held that the charges did not include wrongful gain to the Respondent and corresponding loss to the army, thus not proving the intent to defraud. However, the Supreme Court noted that the charges clearly mentioned the unauthorized claims and countersigning of bills, leading to the withdrawal of Rs. 77,692/-, which was not used for the intended purpose.

3. Interpretation of "intent to defraud" under Section 52(f) of the Army Act:

The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 52(f) is disjunctive, containing two parts: (i) doing something with intent to defraud, and (ii) causing wrongful gain or loss. The Respondent was charged with the first part, and it was not necessary to prove wrongful gain or loss. The Court referred to the definitions of "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" from the Indian Penal Code, noting that "fraudulent" includes non-economic harm. The evidence showed deceit and injury, satisfying the requirement of intent to defraud.

4. Procedural fairness and opportunity for defense:

The Supreme Court found that the Respondent had full opportunity to defend himself, and all procedural steps were followed as required by the Army Act. The Respondent participated in the proceedings, and there was no violation of procedural provisions causing prejudice. The Court highlighted the importance of integrity in the armed forces and upheld the General Court Martial's decision, noting that the Respondent's actions affected the Army's reputation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and confirmed the Single Judge's decision, thereby dismissing the Respondent's Writ Petition. The Court did not order any cost against the Respondent.