UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 04-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 581
581
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N
(Criminal Appeal no. 2196 of 2017)
APRIL 04, 2022
[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Service Law: Armed Force service – Interference by Armed
Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Scope of – Respondent-officer was posted
as the Recruitment Medical Officer– Case against him was that he
helped certain candidates in clearing Army Recruitment Rallies by
declaring them medically fit – General Court Martial (GCM) found
him guilty u/s.7 of the PC Act, 1988 r/w s.69 of the Army Act, 1950
and sentenced him to be cashiered from service and to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year – In appeal, AFT set aside the order of
GCM and convicted him u/s.63 of the Army Act and sentenced him
to punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank of Major and of
severe reprimand – AFT also directed that respondent-officer be
reinstated in service with no pay and allowance for the period he
remained out of service – Instant appeal filed on the ground that
the reappreciation of evidence by the AFT was not permissible –
Held: AFT was entitled to reappreciate evidence to find out if any
findings of the court martial are legally not sustainable due to any
reason, or that the finding involves wrong decision on a question
of law, or there was material irregularity in the course of trial
resulting in miscarriage of justice – If view taken by AFT is found
to be a plausible one, it will not be  permissible for the Court to
interfere with the same only because the court finds the other view
to be more probable/plausible – Equally unless the finding of the
AFT is found to be perverse or impossible, interference would not
be justified – Army Act, 1950 – ss.63, 69 – Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 – s.7 – Judicial review.
Evidence: Extra-judicial confession – Prosecution contended
that Respondent-officer confessed about his involvement – Held :
Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Unless such
a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the
conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration,
would not be justified.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.Reappreciation of evidence by AFT is permissible
to find out if any findings of the court martial are legally not
sustainable due to any reason. If the view taken by the AFT is
found to be a plausible one, it will not be permissible for the
Court to interfere with the same only because the Court finds
the other view to be more probable/plausible. Equally, unless
the finding of the AFT is found to be perverse or impossible, an
interference would not be justified. [Paras 29 and 33][593-G; 594-
G-H]
The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others
(1962) 3 SCR 10 – followed.
Union of India and Others v. Sandeep Kumar and Others
(2019) 10 SCC 496 : [2019] 12 SCR 415 – relied on.
2. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that
from December 2008 itself, they were aware about the racket of
touts in the recruitment scam. Not only this, but P.W.1 has gone
on record to say that, in the recruitment process, 90% of the
persons recruited pay varying amount to touts, though the
selection process was free and fair. P.W.1 has admitted that the
respondent-officer had informed him about the phone calls as
early as in December, 2008. Insofar as P.W.3 is concerned, he
has also admitted that the respondent-officer had informed him
about the phone calls in the month of May, 2009. The finding of
the AFT that, in view of the circumstances, it appears unnatural
that the respondent-officer would make a voluntary confession
on 14th July, 2009 and the written statement on 15th July, 2009
and that many more persons might be involved in the recruitment
scam and in order to find a scapegoat, the possibility of the
respondent-officer being asked to make a confessional statement
with an assurance that no action will be taken against him, cannot
be said to be an impossible view. [Para 41][597-A-D]
3. P.W.2 has also admitted in his examination-in-chief that,
when he assumed the office of Deputy Director General Recruiting
Zone, the first Recruitment Rally was conducted at Jodhpur,
sometime between 11th May, 2009 and 18th/19th May, 2009. He
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
has admitted that during this Recruitment Rally, he came to know
about the receipt of complaints from Medical Officers, including
the respondent-officer, that they had

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