THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL AND ORS. versus COL. ANILTEJ SINGH DHALIWAL

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 12-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

0 
A 
THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL AND ORS. 
v. 
COL. ANILTEJ SINGH DHALIWAL 
DECEMBER 12, 1997 
B 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 94-<:onditions for applicability of-Docu-
mimt admitted by the signatmy thereto-Held, section will apply when the 
execution of the document is admitted and no vitiating circumstance has been 
C put fmward against the same. 
Anny Act,. 1950-Sections 133 and 13~Judicial notice can be taken 
by the Court Mmtial that a lower official obeys implicitly the directions of a 
higher official. 
D 
Rule 182-Letter w1itten by respondent to a senior officer who was not 
a member of the Court of Inquiry after the conclusion of the inquiry-Letter 
not referring to any que1y being put by addressee--R. 182 not attracted. 
Court M a1tial : 
E 
Evidence-Appraisal of by the Cowt Martial-btte1ference by High 
Court-U!/ien not called f 01~-Cowt Martial held that the respondent was 
responsible for the lapse-No omission on the pmt of the Court Martial in 
conside1i11g the relevant evide11ce-/11te1f erence by High Co wt not justified. 
Charges-Vagueness--Cliarge that respondent being the Commanding 
F Officer of his unit came to know about losses/deficiencies--Omitted to report 
the said losses/deficiencies-Charge neither alleging that some other persons 
brought about losses/deficiencies and the same was not reported by the 
respondent nor that it was the respondent himself who caused such los-
ses/deficiencie:r-Held, charge being vague and defective, respondent cannot 
G be held guilty. 
Punishment-Sentence awarded by the Cowt Ma1tial on the basis of 
proof off our charges against the respondent-One of the charges found to be 
unjustifiable and quashed-Question of punishment to be reconsidered by the 
Court Martial on the basis of the remaining three charge:r-Matter remanded 
H to the Court Ma1tial. 
470 
GENERAL COURT MARTIAL v. COL. ANILTEJ SINGH DHALIWAL 
471 
The respondent was an Army Officer and was posted as Command-
A 
ing Officer. Nine charges were framed against him. Charges were in the 
nature of lapses relating to stores procurement against respondent. 
Prosecution witnesses attributed responsibility for the alleged lapses to a 
subordinate official and it was alleged by the respondent that the Court 
Martial did not consider this report. The Court Martial found him guilty B 
on three of the charges. Respondent challenged the findings of the Court 
Martial before the High Court. Before the decision of the High Court, the 
order of the Court Martial was confirmed under Section 154 of the Army 
Act. However, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respon-
dent and quashed the order of the Court Martial. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court had exceeded 
its jurisdiction not only by re-appreciating the evidence but also by an 
erroneous understanding of the provisions of the Evidence Act. It was also 
contended by the appellant that there has been no violation of principles 
c 
of natural justice or rules of procedure and that there was ample evidence D 
on record to support the findings of the Court Martial. 
It was contended by the respondent that the Court Martial has relied 
on inadmissible evidence and overlooked certain relevant evidence on 
record. The contention of the respondent was that the letter Ex Q-lO, on 
the basis of which Charge No. 2 was framed, was written by him in E 
response to a query from the staff of Court of Inquiry and therefore it was 
not admissible in evidence in view of Rule 182 of the Army Rules. It was 
also contended that the Court Martial had not taken into consideration a 
report of PW-27 which was marked as Ex AW. The case of the respondent 
was that the oral evidence of PWs 6, 21 and 24 was not admissible in view 
F 
of the provisions of Section 94 of the Evidence Act. It was Section 92, 
Proviso 1 of the Evidence Act and not Section 94 which was applicable. 
Partly allowing .the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Neither Section 92 nor Section 94 of the Evidence Act is G 
attracted in this case. Section 94 will come into play only when there is a 
document and its language has to be considered with reference to a 
particular factual situation. That section will apply only when the execu-
tion of the document is admitted and no vitiating circumstances has been 
put forward against the same. (482-F-H; 483-A] 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. In the present c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.