UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 18-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI
(Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2016)
APRIL 18, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss.30 and 31 – Court
Martial proceedings – Charges pertained to the alleged obscene
calls purportedly made by the respondent to the three ladies who
were wives of three officers of navy – Finding of guilt – Dismissal
from service as well as forfeiture of 24 calender months of seniority
– Armed Force Tribunal (AFT) maintained the conviction on certain
charges, however, found that punishment of dismissal from service
was disproportionate to the nature of the charges – Aggrieved Union
of India and the officer both appealed – Held: The prosecution
was able to prove that mobile phone used for making offending
calls  was with the respondent during the relevant period –  Further,
the prosecution was able to prove that sexually explicit calls were
received by the wives of the three officers – The charges were proved
and the AFT also recorded the evidence and approved the finding –
Appeal before Supreme Court is limited on the quantum of sentence
given by AFT – After setting aside the sentence of dismissal from
service, the AFT has substituted the same by the sentence of loss  of
seniority for 24 months – Further, while directing reinstatement in
service, the AFT  also ordered that the respondent shall not be
entitled to pay and allowances for the period from the date when he
was dismissed from the service till the date of reinstatement, if it is
within three months from the date of order of the AFT – The
respondent has not been reinstated in service as this court had,
stayed the operation of the said order/direction – For all these
reasons, the order of the Tribunal is not interfered with on sentence
inasmuch the effect is that not only seniority of the respondent is
forfeited by 24 months,  he is also deprived of his salary for more
than five years – Such a sentence would meet the ends of justice
and in these circumstances discretion exercised by the Tribunal is
not interfered with – Navy Act, 1957 – s.77(2) – Service law – Armed
Forces – Sentence.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 806
806
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
807
Dismissing the appeal filed by the officer as well as the
appeal filed by Union of India, the Court
HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to give satisfactory
proof to prove that when the offending calls in question were
made, the Cell Phone with Mobile No. 9564784782 was with the
respondent. [Para 14] [816-C]
2. In order to prove that sexually explicit calls were received
by the wives of the three officers, the prosecution produced these
ladies as PW-9, PW-12 and PW-18.  They explained in detail having
received these calls and the offending language.  To show that
the calls were received from the said phone which belongs to the
respondent, the prosecution had produced Call Data Record
(CDR) of NOFRA land line numbers.  The Officer-in-Charge of
NOFRA who appeared as PW-3 probe the said CDRs of NOFRA
Telephone Exchange showing that all the calls had originated
from Mobile No. 9564784782.  He also produced certificate
issued by him to the effect that the land line numbers of the three
female victims were provided by the NOFRA Telephone
Exchange.  He specifically deposed that true and correct call
records have been produced and there is no reason to disbelieve
that. There was no discrepancies in the CDR produced by
Vodafone before the AFT. [Paras 15, 23] [816-D-E; 826-C]
3. Once the charges are proved in the court martial
conducted by the authorities and the AFT also has given its
imprimatur to the same by putting its stamp of approval, that too,
after recording the evidence, with detailed analyses thereof, it is
not the function of this Court to revisit the entire evidence to
find out as to whether the finding of the authorities below are
correct or not.  The instant proceedings are in the form of appeal
preferred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and, therefore, the
Court is examining the matter as an appellate authority.  However,
the scope of such appeal is limited. A combined reading of Section
30 and 31 clearly brings out that appeal to this Court has to be on
a point of law on general public importance.  The limited scope of
this appeal is to be on the quantum of sentence given by the
AFT.  After setting aside the sentence of dismissal from service,
the Tribunal has substituted the same by the sentence of los

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