S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

10 S.C.R. 572 : 2025 INSC 1215 S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016) 10 October 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the tribunal substituting the conviction of the appellant u/s.63 of the Army Act for possession of ammunition without license and held him guilty u/s.63, an act prejudicial to good order and discipline. Headnotes† Army Act, 1950 – s.63 – Violation of good order and discipline – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.15 – Jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters of appeal against court martial – Appellant-Army officer tried by General Court Martial on three charges-civil offence u/s.5(2) of 2006 Act rw s.69 of the 1950 Act, with regard to alleged acceptance of money from complainant; civil offence u/s.3 of Arms Act rw s.25(1B) and s.69 of the 1950 Act, with regard to alleged possession of ammunition; and act prejudicial to good order and military discipline u/s.63 of the Act with regard to unexplained possession of certain amount – GCM found the appellant guilty of charge Nos.

1 and 2, however, acquitted of charge No.3 – Tribunal held charge No.1 (corruption) not proved; that conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act not sustainable as evidence did not support possession of ammunition without license, and substituted the finding on the same charge and held the appellant guilty u/s.63, an act prejudicial to good order and discipline; and on charge No. 3 upheld the acquittal of the appellant – Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits – Correctness: Held: Factual foundation brought on record at the trial, clearly discloses an act or omission on the part of the appellant which is * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 573 prejudicial to good order and military discipline – Twin condition for invocation of s.63 fulfilled, on basis thereof, the appellant could lawfully have been convicted u/s.63 – Scope of interference in an appeal with the order passed by the tribunal is limited – This Court in appellate jurisdiction would interfere if the order is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious – Tribunal u/s.15(6) of the 2007 Act, has power to substitute the finding of Court Martial, a finding of guilty of any other offence for which offender could have been lawfully found guilty by Court Martial and may pass a sentence afresh – On facts, the tribunal in exercise of its power u/s.15(6), on the established fact of recovery of ammunition from the possession of the appellant, took a lenient view in favour of the appellant and modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits – Tribunal exercised its discretion u/s.15(6) in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual – Tribunal acted strictly within the statutory framework – Said exercise of discretion, thus, does not call for any interference – Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the petition for review filed by the appellant – Army Rules – r.62 (4) – J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. [Paras 26, 27] Case Law Cited