The apex court held that the AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court-martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever.
“It would be permissible for the learned AFT to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law. Under clause(c) thereof, the learned AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court-martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of Justice,” the Judgment noted.
The Supreme Court further opined that if the AFT’s decision is found to be a plausible one, it will not be permissible for the top court to interfere with the same only because this court finds the other view to be more probable/plausible.
“Equally, unless the finding of the learned AFT is found to be perverse or impossible, an interference would not be justified,” the Court said.
On the merits of the case,the Court held that the confession made by the respondent cannot be considered voluntary since the same was not corroborated at all by other evidence.
The Court also noted that a single officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit.
“It could thus be seen that a single officer like the respondent-officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit, if he is otherwise not. His evidence would show that the team like the one of which the respondent-officer was a member, only assists the independent members in the conduct of tests, measurements and the medical examination,” the apex court held.
There was no evidence on record against the respondent officer that he has taken illegal gratification and received any amount.
“In the present case, there is no corroboration at all. On the contrary, PW 1 Col. Anil Singh Rathore in his evidence has himself admitted that the respondentofficer was part of team ‘B’,” the apex court said.
The Court further noted all the three witnesses have admitted that they had no knowledge if any candidate, declared fit by the respondent-officer, was subsequently found to have been medically unfit
Therefore, the Supreme Court found no error with the findings of the AFT regarding acquittal under Section 7 PC.
The Court also ruled that the conviction of the respondent under Section 63 of the Army Act cannot be sustained.
“It appears unnatural that the respondent-officer would make a voluntary confession on July 14, 2009 and the written statement on July 15, 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”, the judgment said.
The Court, therefore, rejected the appeal filed by the Central government and allowed the respondent’s appeal.
Source: Barandbench
