UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus CAPT. A.P. BAJPAI

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 20-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CAPT. A.P. BAJPAI 
FEBRUARY 20, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Army Act, 1950 : Sections 39(b), 52(a), 153, 180 and 164(2). 
c 
Confirming authority-Revisional jurisdiction under S. 160-Scope-
Confirming authority without intending to interfere with the discretion of the 
court directed General Court-Martial (GClvf): (i} to reconsider the entire 
evidence relating to the charge of which the GCM acquitted the accused, (ii) 
to give a further opportunity to the accused to address the Court and (iii) 
to pass a suitable fresh sentence in case the accused was found guilty- D 
Accused contended that the mind of GCM was influenced by the observations 
of the confirming authority, and that the confirming authority ought not to 
have interfered with the proceedings of the GCM which had arrived at a 
finding after considering the evidence-Held: Revisional jurisdiction of the 
confirming authority under S. 160 is not confined only to giving of directions E 
for recording additional evidence by GCM but extends to analysing the 
evidence on record for indicating where the Court"Martial has failed to 
properly appreciate the evidence-In the circumstance of the case, the 
confirming authority did not exceed its jurisdiction-Contentions of accused 
rejected-Army Rules, 1954, Rule 68 and Note 6 thereto. 
F 
The respondent, an Anny Officer, was tried by General Court-Martial 
(GCM) under Section 52(a) and 39(b) of the Anny Act, 1950 (i) for committing 
theft of Government property and (ii) absenting himself without leave. The 
GCM held the respondent guilty of the second charge and sentenced him to 
forfeit three years' service for the purpose of promotion and to be severely G 
reprimanded. The confirming authority under Section 160 of the Act revised 
the findings of the GCM on the first change and directed it to reconsider 
the entire evidence relating to the first charge in the light of the observations 
made by him in the order without in any way intending to interfere with the 
discretion of the Court. The confirming authority further directed that a 
further opportunity should be given to the respondent-accused to address the H 
1041 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A Court and that in case the respondent-accused was found guilty a suitable 
I. 
fresh sentence should be passed. In accordance with the said directions, the 
GCM reconsidered the matter and held the respondent guilty on both the 
charges. The respondent thereafter was sentenced to be dismissed from 
sen'ice. The Chief of the Army Staff confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
B 
The respondent's representation under Section 164(2) of the Act was 
re.iected. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and also the 
order of the confirming authority on the ground that the confirming authority 
had analysed the evidence minutely almost returning the finding of guilt 
against the rcs1iondent and leaving no discretion with the GCM to act otherwise. 
C Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent-accused it was contended that the 
jurisdiction of the confirming authority was confined only to giving of direcions 
for recording additional evidence; that the GCM concluded its proceedings 
hurriedly without applying its mind independently of the observations of the 
D confirming authority; that the mind of the GCM was influenced by the 
observations of the confirming authority; and that there was no ground for 
the confirming authority to interfere with the proceedings of the GCM which 
had considered the evidence and arguments in depth and held the first 
change not proved against the respondent. 
E 
Allowing the ap11eal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of Section 160 of the Army Act, 1950 and Rule 68 
of the Army Rules, 1954 and Note 6 thereto the finding· or sentence of the 
Court-Martial can be revised once by the confirming authority. If after 
remand and Court-Martial returns the same finding or sentence, confirming 
F authority would be bound by the same. As to why the confirming authority 
would like the Court-Martial to reconsider the matter, it has per force to give 
its views which it can do only after examining the evidence on record and 
the proceedings of the Court-Martial. (1048-B) 
G 
Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCR 1025, relied on. 
Gian Chand v. Union of India, (1983) Crl. L.J. 1059 (Del), approved. 
Naib Subedar Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (1983)

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