The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on October 10, 2025, has dismissed an appeal filed by Colonel S.K. Jain, thereby upholding the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to substitute his conviction. The AFT had altered a conviction for a civil offence under the Arms Act, 1959, to a service offence for an “act prejudicial to good order and military discipline” under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950.
The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe, affirmed the AFT’s authority to modify the findings of a General Court Martial (GCM) and held that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the officer was just and proportionate.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, was serving as the Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot (NCVD), Udhampur. In 2008, he faced a GCM on three charges:
- First Charge: A civil offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, for allegedly abusing his position to obtain Rs. 10,000 from a contractor, Shri Sumesh Magotra.
- Second Charge: A civil offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, for being in unauthorized possession of ammunition (four rounds of 7.62 mm SLR, one round of 7.62 mm SLR of a different lot, and three rounds of 9 mm).
- Third Charge: An act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act, for being in possession of Rs. 28,000 in cash without a satisfactory explanation.
On March 26, 2009, the GCM found Colonel Jain guilty of the first two charges (corruption and ammunition possession) but acquitted him of the third charge (unexplained cash). He was sentenced to dismissal from service. His pre-confirmation and post-confirmation petitions were subsequently rejected.
Proceedings Before the Armed Forces Tribunal
Colonel Jain challenged the GCM’s findings before the Armed Forces Tribunal. In its judgment dated June 1, 2012, the Tribunal held:
- On the first charge, there was “no evidence to prove the demand or acceptance of bribe,” and the corruption charge was held to be not proved.
- On the second charge, the Tribunal found that a “strict application of Arms Act via Section 69 of the 1950 Act was inappropriate.” It noted the recovery of old ammunition was “indicative of neglect and failure to adhere to standing instructions governing disposal of surplus or aged ammunition.” Invoking its powers under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal substituted the finding of guilt under the Arms Act with a conviction under Section 63 of the Army Act for an act prejudicial to good order and discipline.
- The acquittal on the third charge was upheld.
Consequently, the Tribunal modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits. A review application filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Tribunal on September 3, 2012.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, argued before the Supreme Court that the Tribunal had erred in substituting the conviction. His counsel submitted that since the Tribunal found him not guilty under the Arms Act, it could not hold him guilty of conduct contrary to military discipline on the same facts. It was also contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement was grossly disproportionate.
The respondents, the Union of India, countered that the Tribunal had not committed any error. They argued that the substitution of the finding was legally permissible under Section 15 of the AFT Act, 2007, as the appellant was found in unauthorized possession of ammunition. They maintained that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the statutory provisions, particularly Section 63 and Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, and Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
The Court observed that Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act grants the Tribunal the power to “substitute for the findings of the court martial, a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh.” The judgment noted that this provision is in pari materia with Section 162 of the Army Act and akin to Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits conviction for a lesser or cognate offence based on the same set of facts.
The bench stated, “The legislative intent appears to be unambiguous. The object of Section 15(6) of 2007 Act is that where the evidence sustains a different, though related offence, the appellate forum is not denuded of power to render a lawful finding merely because the chargesheet mentions another provision.”
The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the recovery of ammunition from the appellant’s possession, which was established by multiple prosecution witnesses and material exhibits. An expert witness had also confirmed that the ammunition was capable of discharge. The judgment highlighted that “The factual foundation brought on record at the trial, clearly discloses an act or omission on the part of the appellant which is prejudicial to good order and military discipline.”
Concluding that the Tribunal acted within its statutory framework, the Supreme Court held that its interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the AFT Act is limited unless the order is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious.
“The Tribunal has exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual,” the Court ruled.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it, thereby confirming the AFT’s judgment and the punishment of compulsory retirement for Colonel S.K. Jain.
