2022 (11) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian Laws

Time Limitation - Appellant relying upon Section 122 of the Army Act submitted that the trial by Court Martial was vitiated being barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the said provision - HELD THAT - In the instant case, having regard to the contents of the letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person i.e., Col. Ramneesh Singh to the concerned authority, it clearly transpires that he was aware of the alleged act of the Appellant having stolen the affection of his wife on the date of the said letter. He had specifically mentioned in the said letter that it was for bringing to the notice of the concerned authority about the Appellant's act of stealing affection of his wife. The date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore The time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents that date of aggrieved person's knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence by the Appellant, should be construed as the date when the Respondents prima facie concluded after the Court of Inquiry that the Appellant had committed the offence, cannot be accepted. The date 13.08.2015 therefore would be the date on which the aggrieved persons i.e., Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence by the Appellant. The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred Under Section 122 of the Act. The trial by the General Court Martial directed vide the order dated 22.11.2018 was clearly barred Under Section 122 of the Army Act. The said proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly set aside. The appeal stands partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant challenging dismissal of Original Application by Tribunal regarding charge-sheet and trial order.
2. Interpretation of Section 122 of the Army Act regarding limitation for trial by Court Martial.
3. Validity of trial by General Court Martial based on timeline of events.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of the Original Application challenging the charge-sheet and trial order. The Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application filed by the Appellant, which was directed against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Appellant had challenged the charge-sheet containing three charges and the order directing the trial by General Court Martial. The Court noted the timeline of events leading to the appeal, including the letter by a colleague alleging misconduct by the Appellant.

2. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 122 of the Army Act concerning the period of limitation for trial by Court Martial. The provision stipulated that no trial shall commence after three years from the date of the offence or the date when the offence was known to the aggrieved person or competent authority. The Appellant argued that the trial was barred by limitation as the order for trial was issued three years after the letter alleging misconduct. The Respondent contended that the trial was justified based on the completion of the Summary of Evidence and prima facie case.

3. The Court analyzed the facts and the relevant legal provisions to determine the validity of the trial by General Court Martial. It was observed that the crucial date for knowledge of the alleged offence was when the aggrieved person wrote the letter, indicating awareness of the misconduct by the Appellant. As the trial order was issued beyond the three-year limitation period, it was held to be in violation of Section 122 of the Army Act. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the trial proceedings. However, the Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, citing precedent, and clarified that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant should continue in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the trial by General Court Martial due to the limitation period violation but affirming the continuation of disciplinary proceedings within the legal framework.