LexCHANDRA KUMAR CHOPRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 1029 CHANDRA KUMAR CHOPRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2002) MAY 11, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B Army Act, 1950: Court Martial - Various charges levelled against the appellant, Major in Indian Army - Objection by appellant against the composition of court martial, repelled - C Trial - Charges found proved and sentence of cashiering and rigorous imprisonment of five years passed against him - Confirming authority passed order of confirmation as regards the sentence of cashiering but reduced the rigorous imprisonment from five years to six months - Writ petition D dismissed - Appeal on the ground that the court martial proceeding was vitiated as the ultimate decision was result of biased forum, that the rules of natural justice were violated as proper defending officer was not provided to appellant and all the charges were not proved against him - On appeal, held: E Nothing was brought on record that there was anything personal against any of the members who constituted Court Martial - Thus, it cannot be held that there was real likelihood of bias because the prudence of a reasonable man cannot so conceive and a right minded man would discard it without F any hesitation - It was not a case where the appellant was not provided with the assistance of a defending officer - A close scrutiny of Court Martial proceeding showed that the defending officer had acted with due sincerity and put forth the case of the appellant in proper perspective, therefore, there G was compliance of the principle of natural justice and no prejudice was caused to the appellant - Perusal of records showed that appellant was guilty of all the charges - All the charges levelled against the appellant fundamentally 1029 H 1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A pertained to commission of illegal acts in fiscal sphere to gain pecuniary advantage - The primary obligation of a member of Armed Forces is to maintain discipline in all aspects - Discipline in fiscal matters has to be given top priority as that mirrors the image of any institution - The charges luminously B projected that the said aspects were given a total go by - Thus, the punishment was not harsh or arbitrary - Regard being had to the nature of rank held by the appellant and the disciplined conduct expected of him, the doctrine of proportionality was uninvocable. c The appellant was Major in the Indian Army. A General Court Martial proceeding was convened against him on the charges of committing offence with an intent to defraud and commit act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. At the commencement of trial in Court D Martial, the appellant objected to some of the officers being members of the composition of Court Martial on the foundation that he had lodged a statutory complaint under Section 27 of the Army Act, 1950 before the Central Government regarding certain irregularities against the E Commander of the Sub-Area and as all the presiding officers had worked under the Convening Officer 'P', the composition of Court Martial was vitiated. The objection was repelled. The Court Martial proceeded with the trial and found that all the charges levelled against the F appellant were proved and passed sentence of cashiering and rigorous imprisonment for five years. The confirming authority passed an order of confirmation as regards the sentence of cashiering but reduced the rigorous imprisonment from five years to six months. The G appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that since lack of faith and confidence was expressed in the convening officer and the composition H of Court Martial in view of the statutory complaint filed by CHANDRA KUMAR CHOPRA v. UNION OF INDIA 1031 the appellant, the whole proceeding was vitiated as the A ultimate conclusion was the result of a biased forum; that there was violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not provided with a proper defending officer and an officer was imposed on him who was reluctant to canvass his case; that the first charge levelled against the appellant was not proved inasmuch B as no officer from the Corporation was examined to deny the receipts given by it to the appellant pertaining to transportation of goods from Bangalore to Udhampur and that the bill that was submitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.