Case Summary: S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. (2025) | Armed Forces Tribunal Gains Judicial Backing to Alter Court-Martial Findings

The Supreme Court’s judgment examines the scope and extent of the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) power under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to substitute one finding of guilt with another under the Army Act, 1950.

The decision reiterates that while the Tribunal may substitute a conviction if the evidence justifies a cognate offence, it must do so within statutory limits and without resulting in injustice. It also reinforces the limited scope of appellate interference by the Supreme Court under Section 30 of the 2007 Act.

Case Title: S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1215

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: 10 October 2025

Factual Background

Commission and Posting

The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, was commissioned into the Indian Army’s Ordnance Corps. On 27 August 2006, he was promoted to Colonel (Selection Grade) and posted as Commandant of Northern Command Vehicle Depot (NCVD), Udhampur. His responsibilities included overseeing the inspection and intake of Royal Enfield motorcycles supplied to the Army.

Bribery Complaint

One Sumesh Magotra, a contractor representing M/s Vivek Motors, Udhampur, alleged that the appellant demanded ₹100 per motorcycle for passing them in inspection tests. The complainant approached the Commanding Officer, Northern Command Counter Intelligence Unit, expressing concern about coercion and the impending demand for ₹10,000 in cash.

Trap and Recovery

On 27 September 2008, the complainant carried an envelope with ₹10,000 (in 100 notes of ₹100 each, photocopied for verification) to the appellant’s office. A Board of Officers searched the premises and discovered:

• The envelope with ₹10,000 under the appellant’s computer table,
• ₹28,000 in a briefcase,
• And some ammunition (seven rounds) in the office.

The appellant declined to frisk the officers searching. Consequently, he was arrested and charged under the Army Act, 1950.

Charges Framed and Court Martial Proceedings

A General Court Martial (GCM) was convened on 18 December 2008, concluding on 26 March 2009. The appellant faced three charges:

• Charge I – Corruption (Army Act, Section 69 read with Section 5(2), J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006): Allegedly demanding and accepting ₹10,000 as illegal gratification for passing motorcycles during inspection.

• Charge II – Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (Army Act, Section 69 read with Section 25(1-B), Arms Act, 1959): Possession of ammunition (7.62 mm SLR – 5 rounds and 9 mm – 3 rounds) without authority.
• Charge III – Unexplained Cash (Army Act, Section 63): Possession of ₹28,000 without satisfactory explanation—an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

Findings of the General Court Martial

• The GCM convicted the appellant under Charges I and II (corruption and ammunition possession) and acquitted him of Charge III (unexplained cash).
• He was dismissed from service on 26 March 2009.
• His pre-confirmation petition was dismissed by the Lieutenant General, GOC-in-C, Northern Command, on 4 June 2009.

The post-confirmation petition to the Union of India remained undecided beyond the statutory 30-day period, leading the appellant to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)

First Application (O.A. No. 157/2009)

The appellant sought a direction to decide his post-confirmation petition. The Tribunal ordered its disposal within 45 days (03 May 2010). The Union failed to comply.

Second Application (O.A. No. 445/2010)

Filed on 26 July 2010, this application challenged the GCM order dated 26 March 2009 and the pre-confirmation order dated 4 June 2009, seeking reinstatement. During its pendency, the Union dismissed the post-confirmation petition on 9 November 2010.

Findings and Decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal

The Tribunal made the following findings:

Charge I (Corruption): Held not proved, since no credible evidence established the demand or acceptance of a bribe.

Charge II (Ammunition): Conviction under Arms Act held unsustainable—the ammunition recovered was old, vintage stock; no proof of intent to misuse or possess unlawfully.

However, under Section 15(6)(a) of the AFT Act, 2007, read with Rule 62(4) of the Army Rules, the Tribunal substituted the finding—holding the appellant guilty under Section 63 of the Army Act, for an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline (for neglecting procedure regarding old ammunition disposal).

Charge III (Cash Possession): Acquittal by GCM was upheld.

Sentence Modification: The punishment of dismissal was substituted with compulsory retirement with all pensionary and retiral benefits, to be paid within 120 days, failing which 12% interest would apply.

The Tribunal partly allowed the application.

Post-Tribunal Proceedings

• The Union of India’s appeal against the Tribunal’s judgment was dismissed on 9 July 2012.
• The appellant’s review petition was dismissed on 3 September 2012.
• The Supreme Court (in Civil Appeal D No. 9035/2013) dismissed the Union’s challenge on 6 May 2013, leaving questions of law open.
• The judgment was implemented on 15 May 2013, and the appellant accepted benefits under protest.
• His writ petition (W.P.(C) 4064/2014) before the Delhi High Court was disposed of (20 March 2015), allowing him to avail the Supreme Court remedy per UOI v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma [(2015) 6 SCC 773].
• His Review Petition was dismissed (3 July 2015).
• The AFT granted leave to appeal (M.A. No. 25/2016) on 19 February 2016, noting that substantial questions of law of public importance were involved—leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was justified in substituting the conviction under Section 69 of the Army Act with one under Section 63 (act prejudicial to good order and discipline).
• Whether the Tribunal had the power under Section 15(6) of the AFT Act, 2007, to modify the finding and alter the punishment accordingly.
• Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the offence.

Arguments Advanced

Appellant’s Contentions

• The Tribunal found the appellant not guilty under the Arms Act, yet held him guilty under Section 63 without independent evidence.
• Mere possession of vintage ammunition without intent or purpose cannot amount to conduct prejudicial to discipline.
• The punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate and unjustified.
• The review dismissal by AFT was erroneous.

Respondents’ Contentions

• The appellant was found in unauthorised possession of ammunition, constituting misconduct under Section 63.
• Rule 62(4) and Section 15(6) of the AFT Act expressly empower the Tribunal to substitute findings based on evidence.
• The Tribunal’s substitution and punishment were proportionate and lawful.

Relevant Statutory Framework

Army Act, 1950

Section 63: Punishes acts or omissions prejudicial to good order and military discipline, not specifically defined elsewhere.

Section 69: Provides that the commission of any civil offence by a person subject to the Act constitutes an offence under military law.

Section 70: Excludes certain offences (murder, culpable homicide, rape) against civilians from trial by court martial unless under special circumstances.

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

Section 15(6): Authorises the Tribunal to substitute findings of the court martial for any other offence that the accused could have been lawfully convicted of, and to pass a sentence afresh.

The Court compared this provision to Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows conviction for a lesser or cognate offence when the main charge fails.

Court’s Analysis

Interpretation of Sections 63 and 69

The Court observed that:

• Section 69 creates a legal fiction deeming a civil offence as an offence under military law.
• Section 63, on the other hand, applies to acts or omissions not specified elsewhere in the Act but which are prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Thus, when possession of ammunition did not meet the threshold of a “civil offence” under the Arms Act, it could still constitute a breach of military discipline.

Power under Section 15(6) of the AFT Act

The Court emphasised that substitution of findings is permissible only if:

• The accused could lawfully have been found guilty of the substituted offence by the original court-martial, and
• The Tribunal bases its finding on evidence already on record, not on new facts.
• The legislative intent behind Section 15(6) was to prevent injustice and technical acquittals when evidence supports a related, though lesser, offence.

Application to Present Case

• Evidence from multiple prosecution witnesses (Col. Kulkarni, Col. Bahuguna, Lt. Col. Thakur, Major S.B. Mishra, and expert Sepoy Nayak) established the recovery of ammunition from the appellant’s office.
• The appellant did not dispute recovery, merely claiming the ammunition was old and left behind.
• Expert testimony confirmed the ammunition was aged but capable of discharge, suggesting neglect of safety procedures.
• Therefore, even though possession under the Arms Act was not established, the facts justified a conviction under Section 63, as neglecting proper disposal violated military discipline.

Tribunal’s Exercise of Discretion

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to:

1. Set aside the conviction under Section 69, and
2. Substitute conviction under Section 63 (disciplinary offence) was lawful and justified.
3. Moreover, the Tribunal adopted a lenient approach, converting dismissal to compulsory retirement with pension benefits, reflecting a balance between discipline and fairness.

Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings and reasoning:

• The AFT validly invoked Section 15(6) to substitute the conviction from a civil offence under the Arms Act to a disciplinary offence under Section 63.
• The punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate, reflecting leniency in light of mitigating factors.
• The review dismissal was correct and did not suffer from legal infirmity.
• The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal’s judgment.

Held:

“The Tribunal has acted strictly within the statutory framework. Its discretion was exercised in a manner both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual. No interference is warranted.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. is a significant reaffirmation of the Armed Forces Tribunal’s quasi-judicial authority and its functional equivalence to a court-martial in correcting findings and ensuring proportional justice.

The Court balanced institutional discipline with fairness to the individual officer, emphasising that technical acquittals must not defeat substantive justice where evidence discloses misconduct undermining military order.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams