/2022 insc 0257/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2017
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.     ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N    ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 537­538 OF 2018
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. These   two   cross­appeals   challenge   the   judgments   and
orders  passed by   the  learned  Armed  Forces  Tribunal,  Regional
bench,   Kochi   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   learned   AFT”)
dated   2 nd
  March,   2017,   passed   in   O.A.   (Appeal)   No.2   of   2014
and 30 th
 May, 2017, passed in M.A. No.271 of 2017.  
1

2. Criminal   Appeal  No.2196   of  2017  is  filed  by   the  Union   of
India   and   others,   challenging   that   part   of   the   judgment   and
order dated 2 nd
 March, 2017, of the learned AFT, vide which the
learned AFT, while  setting  aside the  order  of  conviction,  under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred  to as  “the  P.C. Act”) read with  Section  69  of the  Army
Act,   1950   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Army   Act”)   and   the
sentence   of   cashiering   from   service   and   suffering   of   rigorous
imprisonment for one year, dated 28 th
 April, 2013 passed by the
General   Court   Martial   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “GCM”),   has
convicted   the   respondent­Major   R.   Metri   (appellant   in
connected appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.537­538 of 2018)
[hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   respondent­officer”]   under
Section   63   of   the   Army   Act,   and   in   turn,   sentenced   him   to
punishment   of   forfeiture   of   seniority   of   rank   of   Major   and   of
severe  reprimand.     The  learned  AFT  has   also   directed   that   the
respondent­officer   be   reinstated   in   service,   with   no   pay   and
2

allowance   for   the   period   he   remained   out   of   service,   but,
without any service break.  
3. Criminal Appeal Nos. 537­538 of 2018 have been filed by
the   respondent­officer,   aggrieved   by   that   part   of   the   said
judgment   and   order   of   the   learned   AFT,   convicting   him   for
offence   punishable   under   Section   63   of   the   Army   Act   and
sentencing him to punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank
and of severe reprimand.  
4. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals
are as under:  
5. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   parties   are   referred   to
hereunder as are found in Criminal Appeal No. 2196 of 2017.  
6. In the year 2008, the respondent­officer was posted as the
Recruiting Medical Officer, Army Recruiting Office, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.  At the relevant time, P.W.1­Col. Anil Singh Rathore
3

was   the   Director   of   the   Army   Recruiting   Office,   Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan. 
7. Between   16 th
  December,   2008   and   18 th
  December,   2008,
an Army Recruitment Rally took place in Udaipur. According to
the   prosecution,   P.W.8­Major   BSRK   Prasad   as   well   as   P.W.12­
Major D. Srinivas, who were also working as Recruiting Medical
Officers,   contacted   the   respondent­officer   and   told   him   that
they   help   the   candidates   by   making   them   medically   fit   and
asked his help for clearing certain candidates by declaring them
medically fit.   It is the case of the prosecution that, though, at
first,   the   respondent­officer   was   reluctant,   at   the   insistence   of
P.W.8­Major   BSRK   Prasad,   he   helped   clearing   certain
candidates within acceptable range.  
8. It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   when   the
respondent­officer went to his native place at Dharwad on 28 th
December,   2008,   he   was   informed   by   P.W.8­Major   BSRK
Prasad   that   an   amount   of   Rs.65,000/­   would   be   paid   to   him
4

towards   his   share.     It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   the
respondent­officer   asked   P.W.8­Major   BSRK   Prasad   that   the
said   amount   be   deposited   in   the   account   of   his   father­in­law.
Accordingly,   an   amount   of   Rs.65,000/­   was   deposited   in   the
account of the father­in­law of the respondent­officer.  
9. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   prosecution   that   there   was
another  Recruitment  Rally  in Dausa in  January, 2009.   In the
said rally, P.W.12­Major D. Srinivas requested the respondent­
officer   to   help   some   candidates   and   the   respondent­officer,
though reluctant, helped in clearing some candidates within the
acceptable   range.     It   is   the   prosecution   case   that   the
respondent­officer’s wife delivered a baby girl on 16 th
  February,
2009,   and   as   such,   the   respondent­officer   wanted   to
immediately rush to his native place.   Since he was not having
sufficient funds to buy an air­ticket, he requested P.W.12­Major
D.   Srinivas   to   lend   an   amount   of   Rs.   20,000/­.   The   said
amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   was   deposited   in   the   account   of   the
5

respondent­officer   by   P.W.10­Varalakshmi   Srinivas,   i.e.,   the
wife   of   P.W.12­Major   D.   Srinivas.     It   is   the   case   of   the
prosecution that P.W.12­Major D. Srinivas told the respondent­
officer   that   the   said   amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   was   towards   his
share for helping the candidates in Dausa Recruitment Rally.  
10. It   is   further   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   there   were
also   Recruitment   Rallies   in   Jodhpur   and   Ganganagar   in   May,
2009   and   June,   2009   respectively.   It   is   the   allegation   that   in
the   said   rallies   also,   certain   malpractices   of   clearing   some
candidates   as   medically   fit,   who   were   not   otherwise   fit,   took
place.  
11. It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   in   the   month   of
July, 2009, there was another Recruitment Rally at Ajmer. The
respondent­officer,   along   with   P.W.1­Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore,
went to Ajmer to take part in the said Recruitment Rally.  When
the   Recruitment   process   was   going   on   at   Ajmer,   a   First
Information   Report   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “FIR”)   No.125   of
6

2009,   came   to   be   registered   in   Police   Station   Adarsh   Nagar,
Ajmer   on   11 th
  July,   2009,   at   the   instance   of   one   Narendra
Singh,   under   Sections   406   and   420   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,
1860   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “IPC”),   complaining   about   the
malpractices   in   the   Army   Recruitment   Rally.     P.W.6­   Mohd.
Anwar   Khan,   Circle   Inspector,   took   up   the   investigation   and
arrested 10 persons, who were alleged to be touts.  
12. It is the prosecution case that on 13 th
  July, 2009, certain
reports   were   published   in   Media   at   Ajmer.     In   the   media
reports, the name of three officers, namely, (1) the respondent­
officer;  (2)  P.W.8­Major   BSRK  Prasad;  and  (3)  P.W.12­Major  D.
Srinivas   and   three   Junior   Commissioned   Officers,   namely,   (1)
Subedar   Major   VP   Singh;   (2)   Subedar   Surjan   Singh   and   (3)
Subedar Major Jaswant Singh were mentioned.
13. It  is  the  case  of  the   prosecution  that,   on  14 th
  July,  2009,
in   the   evening,   the   respondent­officer   went   to   P.W.1­Col.   Anil
Singh   Rathore.   They   had   gone   to   a   nearby   temple   and   on   the
7

stairs of the temple, the respondent­officer confessed about his
involvement.     P.W.1­Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore   asked   the
respondent­officer to give his confession in writing.  It is further
the  case of the  prosecution  that  the respondent­officer  initially
came   with   a   draft   confession   on   15 th
  July,   2009,   on   which,
P.W.1­Col. Anil Singh Rathore told him that there was no need
for him to see the draft and he should submit a final statement.
Accordingly,   on   the   same   day,   at   around   8.00   p.m.,   the
respondent­officer  gave a written statement to  P.W.1­ Col. Anil
Singh   Rathore   in   the   presence   of   P.W.   3­   Col.   Bharat   Kumar
and   P.W.4­ Col.   Balraj   Singh   Sohi .       On   16 th
  July,   2009,   the
Office   of   Superintendent   of   Police   sought   the   presence   of   the
respondent­officer   to   interrogate   him   and   others   in   the   FIR   in
question.  The statement of the respondent­officer was recorded
by the Police on 18 th
 July, 2009.  
14. On 14 th
 December, 2009, the Court of Inquiry proceedings
were   convened.     The   General   Officer   in   Commanding
8

(hereinafter   referred   to  as   “GOC”),   South  West   Command,   vide
Note dated 14 th
  December, 2009, directed disciplinary action to
be   taken   against   the   respondent­officer   and   two   other   officers,
namely   P.W.12­Major   D.   Srinivas   and   P.W.8­Major   BSRK
Prasad and three Junior Commissioned Officers.
15. The respondent­officer and others challenged the Court of
Inquiry   proceedings   by   way   of   Original   Applications   before   the
learned   AFT,   Jaipur.   The   same   were   rejected   by   the   learned
AFT, Jaipur, vide order dated 9 th
 April, 2010.  
16. The   GCM   proceedings   were   ordered   to   be   instituted
against   the   respondent­officer   and   five   others   on   28 th
  June,
2012, on the following Charges:
"a)  Charge No.1: 
Army   Act   Sec   69   Committing   a   civil
offence,   that   is   to   say,   being   a   public
servant,   obtaining   for   himself   a
gratification   other   than   legal
remuneration   as   a   reward   for   doing   an
9

official   act,   contrary   to   section   7   of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 
In that he 
At   Dharwad   during   January   2009,
which   came   to   the   knowledge   of
authority   competent   to   initiate   action
on   14   Dec   2009,   while   performing   the
duties   of   Recruiting   Medical   Officer
Jhunjhunu,   being   a   public   servant,
obtained  Rs.65000/­  from   MR­08309  L
Major   BSRK   Prasad   as   a   reward   of   his
share   for   helping   the   candidates   for
recruitment   in   the   Army,   in   Udaipur
rally. 
b)  Charge No.2: 
Army   Act   Sec   69   Committing   a   civil
offence,   that   is   to   say,   being   a   public
servant,   obtaining   for   himself   a
gratification   other   than   legal
remuneration   as   a   reward   for   doing   an
official   act,   contrary   to   Section   7   of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 
In that he 
At   Dharwad   during   Feb   2009,   which
came   to   the   knowledge   of   authority
competent   to   initiate   action   on   14   Dec
10

2009,   while   performing   the   duties   of
Recruiting   Medical   Officer   Army
Recruiting   Office   Jhunjhunu,   being   a
public   servant,   obtained   Rs.20,000/­
from Mrs. Vara Laxmi wife of MR­08205
K   Major   D   Srinivas   as   a   reward   of   his
share   for   helping   the   candidates   for
recruitment in the Army in Dausa rally.
(c) Charge No.3: 
Army   Act   Sec   69   Committing   a   civil
offence,   that   is   to   say,   being   a   public,
servant,   obtaining   for   himself   a
gratification   other   than   legal
remuneration   as   a   reward   for   doing   an
official   act,   contrary   to   Section   7   of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 
In that he 
At Jodhpur, between January 2009 and
April   2009,   which   came   to   the
knowledge   of   authority   competent   to
initiate   action,   on   14   Dec   2009,   while
performing   the   duties   of   Recruiting
Medical   Officer,   Army   Recruiting   Office
Jhunjhunu,   being   a   public   servant
obtained SIM No.9784341343 from   Mr.
Taru   Lai,   as   a   motive   for   helping   his
11

candidates   for   recruitment   in   the
Army."
17. At   the   conclusion   of   the   trial,   the   GCM   found   the
respondent­officer guilty of charge Nos.1 and 2 and not guilty of
charge   No.3.     The   GCM,   therefore,   vide   order   dated   28 th
  April,
2013,   sentenced   the   respondent­officer   to   be   cashiered   from
service  and  to   suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one   year.   The
GOC   confirmed   the   findings   and   sentence   of   the   GCM,   but
remitted   the   unexpired   portion   of   the   sentence   of   rigorous
imprisonment,   vide   order   dated   29 th
  December,   2013.   Being
aggrieved   thereby,   the   respondent­officer   preferred   an   appeal
before   the   learned   AFT   by   way   of   O.A.   (Appeal)   No.2   of   2014.
The   same   has   been   partly   allowed   by   the   impugned   judgment
and order dated 2 nd
 March, 2017, as aforesaid.  Being aggrieved
thereby, the present appeals. 
18. We have heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional
Solicitor   General   (“ASG”   for   short),   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
12

Union   of   India   and   others   and   Shri   Gaurav   Agrawal,   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­officer.
19. Shri   Vikramjit   Banerjee,   learned   ASG,   submits   that   the
scope   of   interference   by   the   learned   AFT   under   Section   15   of
the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as
“the   AFT   Act”)   is   very   limited.     He   submitted   that   the
reappreciation   of   evidence   by   the   learned   AFT   is   not
permissible.  It is submitted that the interference by the learned
AFT   would   be   warranted   only   on   three   grounds,   as   is
mentioned   under   sub­section   (4)   of   Section   15   of   the   AFT   Act.
In this respect, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of  Union of India and others vs. Sandeep Kumar
and others 1
.  
20. Shri Banerjee further submitted that the learned AFT has
grossly   erred   in   holding   that   the   confessional   statement   made
by   the   respondent­officer   was   not   voluntary.     It   is   submitted
1   (2019) 10 SCC 496
13

that   when   the   respondent­officer   made   the   confessional
statement,   he   was   not   an   accused,   and   as   such,   the   learned
AFT   has   grossly   erred   in   relying   on   Article   20(3)   of   the
Constitution of India.  In this respect, he relies on the judgment
of Eleven­judge Bench of this Court in the case of  The State of
Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and others 2
.
21. Shri   Banerjee   further   submits   that   the   learned   AFT   itself
has   come   to   a   conclusion   that   the   respondent­officer   has
indulged   in   financial   misconduct,   and   therefore,   the
punishment   of   cashiering   from   service   for   such   misconduct
ought   not   to   have   been   sustained.     Reliance   in   this   respect   is
placed   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chandra
Kumar Chopra vs. Union of India and others 3
.
22. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of   the   respondent­officer,   on   the   contrary,   submits   that   the
2   (1962) 3 SCR 10
3   (2012) 6 SCC 369
14

learned   AFT   has   rightly   held   that   the   confessional   statement
was   not   voluntary.       He   submitted   that   the   extra­judicial
confession   is   a   very   weak   piece   of   evidence   and   conviction   on
the basis of the same cannot be sustained, unless there is some
corroboration. He submits that the news about the respondent­
officer being already involved in the FIR, registered on 11 th
 July,
2009,   was   already   published   in   the   newspapers   on   13 th
  July,
2009.     He   submits   that   the   Police   had   already   started
interrogation   with   regard   to   the   FIR   and   there   was   discussion
between   the   Police   officials   and   the   Army   officials.     He
submitted that the learned AFT has come to a conclusion that
it was a huge recruitment scam and in order to save the higher
officials, the possibility of the respondent­officer being forced to
give such a confession by promising him that he would also be
saved,   is   a   possible   view.     He,   therefore,   submits   that   no
interference   would   be   warranted   with   the   findings   of   the
learned AFT in that regard. 
15

23. He further submitted that even the evidence of P.W.1­Col.
Anil   Singh   Rathore ,   Director,   Army   Recruitment   Centre,
Jhunjhunu;   P.W.2­Brigadier   Arun   Kumar   Tuli,   Dy.   Director
General,   Recruitment   Zone   Rajasthan   at   Jaipur;   and   P.W.   4­
Col. Balraj Singh Sohi, Director Recruiting Office, Jaipur would
reveal that not a single person was found, who could be said to
have   been   medically   declared   fit,   though   being   unfit.     He
further   submitted   that,   on   the   contrary,   the   evidence   of   the
prosecution witnesses would itself reveal that actual tests were
conducted by independent members and the medical team was
only   assisting   the   independent   members   in   the   conduct   of
tests, measurements and the medical examination.   He further
submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses would itself
show   that   there   was   no   material   to   establish   that   the
respondent­officer had received any amount from the touts as a
consideration for clearing any candidate. 
16

24. Shri   Agrawal   further   submits   that   from   the   evidence   of
P.W.10­Varalakshmi   Srinivas,   it   is   clear   that   the   amount   of
Rs.20,000/­   was   deposited   by   her,   on   the   directions   of   her
husband,   P.W.12­Major   D.   Srinivas,   since   the   respondent­
officer was in dire need of the said money as he had to rush to
his home­ town at Dharwad by flight.   He submitted that from
the evidence of P.W.12­Major D. Srinivas, it would be clear that
the   said   amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   was   returned   by   the
respondent­officer   to   P.W.12­Major   D.   Srinivas,   on   his   return
from Dharwad. 
25. Insofar as the amount of Rs.65,000/­ alleged to have been
received   from   P.W.8­Major   BSRK   Prasad   is   concerned,   Shri
Agrawal   would   submit   that   P.W.8­Major   BSRK   Prasad   had
taken   a   loan   of   Rs.65,000/­   from   the   father­in­law   of   the
respondent­officer, since he wanted to purchase a plot of land.
He   submits   that   the   amount   of   Rs.65,000/­   deposited   in   the
account   of   the   father­in­law   of   the   respondent­officer   was
17

towards   the   repayment   of   the   said   loan.   He   submits   that   the
said   fact   would   be   evident   from   the   evidence   of   P.W.8­Major
BSRK Prasad. 
26. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,
we have scrutinized the material on record.  Insofar as the first
submission with regard to scope of Section 15 of the AFT Act is
concerned,   it   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   sub­section   (4)   of
Section 15 of the AFT Act, which reads as under:  
“15.   Jurisdiction,   powers   and   authority
in   matters   of   appeal   against   court­
martial.­  (1)   ………………………………
(2) ……………………………………….
(3) ……………………………………….
(4)   The   Tribunal   shall   allow   an   appeal
against   conviction   by   a   court­martial
where ­ 
(a)   the   finding   of   the   court­martial   is
legally   not   sustainable   due   to   any
reason whatsoever; or
18

(b) the   finding   involves   wrong   decision
on a question of law; or
(c) there   was   a   material   irregularity   in
the   course   of   the   trial   resulting   in
miscarriage of justice, but, 
in any other case, may dismiss the appeal
where   the   Tribunal   considers   that   no
miscarriage of justice is likely to be caused
or has actually resulted to the appellant:
Provided   that   no   order   dismissing   the
appeal   by   the   Tribunal   shall   be   passed
unless   such   order   is   made   after   recording
reasons therefor in writing.”
27. It   could   thus   be   seen   that,   in   view   of   clause   (a)   of   sub­
section (4) of Section 15 of the AFT Act, the learned AFT would
be   justified   in   interfering   with   the   finding   of   the   court­martial
where   its   finding   is   legally   not   sustainable   due   to   any   reason
whatsoever.     Under   clause   (b)   thereof,   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
19

appeal against conviction by  a court­martial when there was a
material   irregularity   in   the   course   of   the   trial   resulting   in
miscarriage of justice.  
28. Insofar   as   reliance   placed   by   Shri   Vikramjit   Banerjee,
learned   ASG   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Sandeep   Kumar   and   others   (supra)   is   concerned,   this   Court
in the said case itself has observed thus:
“46.   Section   15   of   the   Act   confers   wide
power   on   the   Tribunal   so   as   to   allow   an
appeal against conviction by a court martial
where   the   finding   of   the   court   martial   is
legally   not   sustainable   due   to   any   reason;
the   finding   involves   wrong   decision   on   a
question   of   law   or   there   was   a   material
irregularity   in   the   course   of   the   trial
resulting   in   miscarriage   of   justice.   Even
though   the   power   of   the   Tribunal   is   wide
but   it   is   not   merely   a   different   opinion   on
the  appreciation  of the  evidence  to  interfere
with   the   findings   recorded   by   the   court
martial.   The   first   ground   of   interference   is
whether   the   finding   of   the   court   martial   is
“legally   not   sustainable”.   Therefore,   to
exercise such power, there has to be error of
law by the court martial which would confer
20

jurisdiction   on   the   Tribunal   to   interfere
against the conviction recorded by the court
martial.   The   second   ground   is   “wrong
application   on   a   question   of   law”.   However,
the   Tribunal,   in   the   present   case,   has
committed grave error in interfering with the
finding   of   the   court   martial   by   misreading
an   Army   Order.   There   is   no   material
irregularity   pointed   out   by   the   Tribunal
inasmuch   as   the   irregularity   pointed   out   is
with   regard   to   confessional   statements   by
military   officer   which   is   not   a   bar   either
under   the   Evidence   Act   or   under   the   Army
Order   issued   under   the   Act.   The   Tribunal
could   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   a   material
irregularity   in   the   course   of   the   trial
resulting in miscarriage of justice. But such
wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to the
Tribunal   to   reverse   the   findings   merely
because   it   finds   that   different   view   is
possible.”
29. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   this   Court   itself   has   held   that
the   learned   AFT   was   entitled   to   reappreciate   evidence   to   find
out   if   any   findings   of   the   court   martial   are   legally   not
21

sustainable   due   to   any   reason;   or   that   the   finding   involves
wrong   decision   on   a   question   of   law;   or   there   was   a   material
irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of
justice.   We find that the reliance placed by the learned ASG on
the   sentence,   i.e.,   “ But   such   wide   powers   do   not   confer
jurisdiction   to   the   Tribunal   to   reverse   the   findings   merely
because it finds that different view is possible”, is being pressed
into   service   without   context.     In   the   said   case,   on   facts,   this
Court   came   to   the   conclusion   that   there   was   no   material
irregularity   pointed   out   by   the   Tribunal   inasmuch   as   the
irregularity   pointed   out   was   with   regard   to   confessional
statements by military officer which was not a bar either under
the   Evidence   Act   or   under   the   Army   Order   issued   under   the
Act.     This   Court,   therefore,   came   to   a   specific   conclusion   that
the   finding   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   was   on   misreading   of   an
Army   order.     The   sentence   which   is   pressed   into   service   will
have to be read in the context of those findings.  We are unable
22

to   accept  the  contention  urged  on  behalf  of  the  Union  of  India
that   the   learned   AFT   is   not   entitled   to   reappreciate   the
evidence.  Such reappreciation of evidence is permissible to find
out   if   any   findings   of   the   court   martial   are   legally   not
sustainable   due to any reason.
30. It is not in dispute that the GCM has passed its conviction
basically   on   the   confessional   statement   made   by   the
respondent­officer.     Reliance   in   this   respect   is   placed   on   the
judgment of the Eleven­judge Bench of this Court in the case of
The   State   of   Bombay   vs.   Kathi   Kalu   Oghad   and   others
(supra).  It will be relevant to refer to the following observations
of this Court in the said case:
“( 1 ) An accused person cannot be said to
have   been   compelled   to   be   a   witness
against himself simply  because he  made
a   statement   while   in   police   custody,
without   anything   more.   In   other   words,
the   mere   fact   of   being   in   police   custody
at   the   time   when   the   statement   in
question   was   made   would   not,   by   itself,
23

as a proposition of law, lend itself to the
inference   that   the   accused   was
compelled   to   make   the   statement,
though   that   fact,   in   conjunction   with
other   circumstances   disclosed   in
evidence in a particular case, would be a
relevant   consideration   in   an   enquiry
whether   or   not   the   accused   person   had
been   compelled   to   make   the   impugned
statement.”
31. It   is   to   be   noted   that   this   Court,   in   the   aforesaid   case
itself,   has   held   that   the   question,   as   to   whether   a   person   was
compelled   to   make   a   statement   or   not,  is   a   question   of   fact   in
each case to be determined by the Court on weighing the facts
and circumstances disclosed in the evidence before it.  
32. In the present case, the learned AFT, upon perusal of the
evidence of P.W.1­ Col. Anil Singh Rathore, P.W.3­ Col. Bharat
Kumar   and   P.W.4­Col.   Balraj   Singh   Sohi,   has   come   to   a
conclusion   that   from   the   circumstances   as   emerged,   it   cannot
be said that the confessional statement was voluntary.  
24

33. The finding as recorded by the learned AFT, was recorded
while   allowing   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   respondent­officer
against   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   GCM   dated   28 th
  April,
2013, as confirmed by the GOC vide order dated 29 th
 December,
2013,   holding   him   guilty   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Section 7 of the P.C. Act read with Section 69 of the Army Act.
As such, in the present matter, while considering the appeal of
the   Union   of   India   and   others,   we   will   be   guided   by   the
parameters   that   weigh   while   considering   an   appeal   against
acquittal.  If the view taken by the learned AFT is found to be a
plausible   one,   it   will   not   be   permissible   for   this   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.  
34. From   the   perusal   of   evidence   of   P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh
Rathore , it would reveal that he himself has stated that after he
25

was   posted   as   Director,   Army   Recruiting   Office,   Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan   in   May,   2008,   he   had   received   various   calls   from
unauthorized elements seeking favours for recruitment. He had
told  them  to  lay  off.   However,  in  spite  of this,  the said  callers
increased   the   frequency   of   making   calls   seeking   favours   and
also   started   using   threatening   language.     He   stated   that   the
issue   was   discussed   in   detail   with   all   Directors   of   the   Army
Recruiting   Office   under   the   zone.     He   stated   that,   in   the
Conference,   he   had   informed   the   Additional   Director   General
Recruiting,   Integrated   Headquarters   of   Ministry   of   Defence
(Army) that, though the recruiting system was free and fair, yet
about 90% of the persons recruited, pay varying amounts to the
touts.  He further stated that in the month of May, 2009, when
the   Recruitment   Rally   was   held   at   Jodhpur,   the   respondent­
officer   was   detailed   as   a   member   of   the   medical   team   for   the
said   Recruitment   Rally.     When   the   Recruitment   Rally   was   in
process,   he   received   a   call   from   the   respondent­officer
26

informing   him   that   the   respondent­officer   had   received   calls
from undesirable elements asking favours from the respondent­
officer.     P.W.1­Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore   has   further   stated   that
he   told   the   respondent­officer   not   to   do   any   favour   to   anyone
and   report   the   matter   to   the   Director   of   Host   Army   Recruiting
Office, i.e., P.W.3­Col. Bharat Kumar.  
35. P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore   further   stated   in   his
evidence that another Recruitment Rally was held in June 2009
at Ganganagar, where he was the Host Army Recruiting Office.
He   had   a   meeting   with   Detachment   Commander   of   South
Western   Command   Intelligence   Unit,   who   provided   him   some
inputs   about   the   touts’   activities  in   the  area.  He   has  stated   in
his   evidence   that   the   respondent­officer   was   one   of   the
members of the medical team  at the Recruitment Rally  held at
Ganganagar. 
36. It   will   be   apposite   to   reproduce   the   following   part   of   the
cross­examination of P.W.1­ Col. Anil Singh Rathore:
27

“As   far   as   I   remember,   first   time   the
accused   informed   me   about   having
received   calls   from   undesirable   elements
was   sometime   in   the   month   of   December,
2008   when   I   came   back   from   leave.
Subsequently,   he   informed   me   about   the
same   from   Jodhpur   recruitment   rally.
Further   in   Ganganagar,   I   heard   the
medical   officers   including   the   accused
discussing about such calls being received
by   them   on   the   dining   table   during
breakfast   time.     Finally   the   same
information   was   given   by   the   accused   in
his   verbal   and   written   confessional
statement   made   on   14   and   15   July   2009
respectively.”
37. P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore   has   further   stated   in   his
evidence   that   he   along   with   the   respondent­officer,   who   was
also one of the members of team ‘B’ as Medical Officer, went to
Ajmer on 9 th
 July, 2009 for the Recruitment Rally to be held on
11 th
  July, 2009.     He states about the news being published in
newspapers   on   13 th
  July,   2009   about   the   Police   taking   action
against the touts.  He states that the respondent­officer came to
28

him  on 14 th
  July, 2009 and wanted to confess his involvement
in the recruitment racket with the touts.  They went to a nearby
temple   where   he   narrated   about   his   involvement   over   a
duration of two hours or so.     He told the respondent­officer to
give everything in writing about what he has narrated.   He has
further   stated   that   on   15 th
  July,   2009,   the   respondent­officer
came   to   him   and   handed   over   a   written   statement   in   the
presence   of   P.W.3­Col.   Bharat   Kumar   and   P.W.4­ Col.   Balraj
Singh Sohi.  
38. P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore,   in   his   cross­examination,
has   admitted   that   he   and   the   other   Recruiting   Officers   had
been   interacting   with   the   Media   at   the   site   of   the   Recruitment
Rally.   He has further admitted that during  interaction on 13 th
July,   2009,   a   number   of   media   persons   had   arrived   in   the
stadium,   where   the   Recruitment   Rally   was   being   conducted.
Though he has denied that the details of information published
in the newspaper dated 13 th
 July, 2009 were given by him, it is
29

not  denied  that  he  has interacted with  the Police  on  13 th
  July,
2009.  
39. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   when   the   respondent­officer
allegedly made an oral confession on 14 th
 July, 2009 and gave a
written   statement   on   15 th
  July,   2009,   the   news   with   regard   to
the recruitment racket was already known to one and all.  
40. P.W.3­Col.   Bharat   Kumar,   who   was   the   Director   of   Army
Recruiting   Office   at   the   relevant   time,   has   stated   in   his
examination­in­chief   that   during   Jodhpur   Recruitment   Rally,
held   between   11 th
  May,   2009   and   21 st
  May,   2009,   the
respondent­officer had come to him, totally shattered with tears
in his eyes, and informed that he had received threatening calls
and   SMS   messages   from   the   touts’   seeking   favours   for   some
candidates. 
41. It is thus clear from the evidence of P.W.1­ Col. Anil Singh
Rathore   and   P.W.3­ Col.   Bharat   Kumar   that   from   December
30

2008   itself,   they   were   aware   about   the   racket   of   touts   in   the
recruitment   scam.     Not   only   this,   but   P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh
Rathore   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
Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore   has   admitted   that   the   respondent­
officer   had   informed   him   about   the   phone   calls   as   early   as   in
December,   2008.     Insofar   as   P.W.3­ Col.   Bharat   Kumar   is
concerned,   he   has   also   admitted   that   the   respondent­officer
had  informed him  about  the  phone calls in  the  month  of  May,
2009.     The   finding   of   the   learned   AFT   that,   in   view   of   the
circumstances, it appears unnatural that the respondent­officer
would make a voluntary confession on 14 th
  July, 2009 and the
written   statement   on   15 th
  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   respondent­officer
being   asked   to   make   a   confessional   statement   with   an
31

assurance  that   no  action  will  be  taken  against  him,  cannot  be
said to be an impossible view.  
42. P.W.2­   Brigadier   Arun   Kumar   Tuli,   at   the   relevant   time,
was the Deputy Director General, Recruitment Zone Rajasthan
at   Jaipur.   He   has   also   admitted   in   his   examination­in­chief
that,   when   he   assumed   the   office   of   Deputy   Director   General
Recruiting   Zone,   the   first   Recruitment   Rally   was   conducted   at
Jodhpur, sometime between 11 th
  May, 2009 and 18 th
/19 th
  May,
2009.   He has admitted that during this Recruitment Rally, he
came   to   know   about   the   receipt   of   complaints   from   Medical
Officers,   including   the   respondent­officer,   that   they   had
received   unwanted   calls   and   SMS   messages   with   threatening
contents.     He   has   also   admitted   in   his   evidence   that,   on   14 th
July,   2009,   he   received   local   newspapers,   which   were   full   of
news on recruitment racket. He has also admitted that, on 14 th
July, 2009, a meeting was arranged with the Superintendent of
Police, Ajmer, who informed him about the FIR.  
32

43. It  could   thus   be  seen   that,  on  cumulative  appreciation   of
evidence   of   P.W.1­ Col.   Anil   Singh   Rathore ,   P.W.2­   Brigadier
Arun   Kumar   Tuli  and   P.W.3­ Col.  Bharat   Kumar ,  the   view   that
the   confessional   statement   made   by   the   respondent­officer   did
not appear to be voluntary cannot be said to be a perverse view.
This is particularly so, when P.W.1­Col. Anil Singh Rathore has
admitted   that   the   respondent­officer   had   intimated   him   about
such   calls   as   early   as   in   December,   2008,   and   also,   P.W.2­
Brigadier Arun Kumar Tuli and P.W.3­Col. Bharat Kumar have
admitted   about   they   having   knowledge   about   such   calls   much
earlier to 14 th
  July, 2009 and 15 th
  July, 2009, i.e., the dates of
oral/written confession. 
44. This   Court   in   the   case   of   Sahadevan   and   another   vs.
State   of   Tamil   Nadu 4
,   after   surveying   various   judgments   on
the issue,  has laid down the following principles:
“ The principles
4   (2012) 6 SCC 403
33

16.   Upon   a   proper   analysis   of   the
abovereferred   judgments   of   this   Court,   it
will   be   appropriate   to   state   the   principles
which   would   make   an   extra­judicial
confession an admissible piece of evidence
capable   of   forming   the   basis   of   conviction
of an accused. These precepts would guide
the   judicial   mind   while   dealing   with   the
veracity   of   cases   where   the   prosecution
heavily   relies   upon   an   extra­judicial
confession   alleged   to   have   been   made   by
the accused:
( i )   The   extra­judicial   confession   is   a
weak   evidence   by   itself.   It   has   to   be
examined by the court with greater care
and caution.
( ii ) It should be made voluntarily and
should be truthful.
( iii ) It should inspire confidence.
( iv )   An   extra­judicial   confession
attains   greater   credibility   and
evidentiary   value   if   it   is   supported   by   a
chain   of   cogent   circumstances   and   is
further   corroborated   by   other
prosecution evidence.
34

( v ) For an extra­judicial confession to
be the basis of conviction, it should not
suffer   from   any   material   discrepancies
and inherent improbabilities.
( vi ) Such statement essentially has to
be   proved   like   any   other   fact   and   in
accordance with law.”
45. It could thus be seen that the extra­judicial 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.
46. In   the   present   case,   there   is   no   corroboration   at   all.   On
the contrary, P.W.1­ Col. Anil Singh Rathore  in his evidence has
himself   admitted   that   the   respondent­officer   was   part   of   team
‘B’.     It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following   part   of   his
examination­in­chief:  
“ In any   recruitment  rally   there are three
teams,   Host   Army   Recruiting   Office,
35

team   'A'   and   'B'.   Host   Army   Recruiting
Office   is   responsible   for   documentation
and   administration.   Team   'A'   is
responsible   for   physical   tests   and   run
while   team   'B'   is   responsible   for
measurements of the candidate and their
medical   examination.   Actual   tests   are
conducted   by   independent   members.
These   team   only   assist   the   independent
members   in   conduct   of   tests,
measurements   and   the   medical
examination.
47. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   a   single   officer   like   the
respondent­officer   cannot   declare   a   candidate   medically   fit,   if
he   is   otherwise   not.     His   evidence   would   show   that   the   team
like the one of which the respondent­officer was a member, only
assists   the   independent   members   in   the   conduct   of   tests,
measurements and the medical examination.  
48. 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.
36

All   the   three   witnesses   have   also   admitted   that   there   was   no
material  to   establish  that   the  amount,   which   was  deposited  in
the account of the respondent­officer and his father­in­law was
an amount received as illegal gratification.  
49. We are, therefore, of the view that no error could be found
with the findings of the learned AFT that the respondent­officer
deserves   to   be   acquitted   of   the   offence   punishable   under
section 7 of the P.C. Act.  
50. That leaves us with the appeals of the respondent­officer. 
51. Perusal   of   the   evidence   of   P.W.10­Varalakshmi   Srinivas
and   P.W.12­Major   D.   Srinivas   would   reveal   that   they   have
stated  in their   evidence, that  since  the  wife  of the  respondent­
officer had given birth to a girl child on 16 th
 February, 2009, he
wanted to rush to his native place at Dharwad and did not have
sufficient   funds.   As   such,   he   had   requested   P.W.12­Major   D.
Srinivas   to   give   a   loan   of   Rs.20,000/­,   which   amount   was
37

deposited by P.W.10­Varalakshmi Srinivas in the account of the
respondent­officer, on the instructions of her husband   P.W.12­
Major   D.   Srinivas .       From   the   evidence   of   P.W.12­   Major   D.
Srinivas,   it   would   reveal   that   on   his   return   from   his   native
place, the respondent­officer had returned the said amount.  
52. Insofar as the amount of Rs.65,000/­ is concerned,  P.W.8­
Major   BSRK   Prasad ,   in   his   evidence,   has   stated   that   he   had
taken   a   loan   of   Rs.65,000/­   from   the   father­in­law   of   the
respondent­officer   for   purchase   of   a   plot   of   land.     The   amount
of Rs.65,000/­ deposited by him in the account of the father­in­
law of the respondent­officer was towards repayment of the said
loan amount.  
53. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   respondent­officer   had
discharged  the  burden  to  prove, as  to   how  the  said amount  of
Rs.20,000/­   was   deposited   in   his   account   and   as   to   how   the
amount   of   Rs.65,000/­   was   deposited   in   the   account   of   his
father­in­law.     As such, that part of the order, which convicts
38

the respondent­officer for the offence punishable under Section
63 of the Army Act, in our view, is not sustainable.  
54. In the result, we pass the following order:
A. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2017
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 2196 of 2017 filed on behalf of the
Union of India and others is dismissed. 
B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 537­538 OF 2018
(i) Criminal Appeal Nos.537­538 of 2018 filed on behalf of
the appellant­Major R. Metri No.08585N are allowed. 
(ii) The   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   2 nd
  March,
2017,   passed   by   the   learned   AFT,   convicting   the
appellant­Major   R.   Metri   No.08585N   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   63   of   the   Army   Act   and
sentencing   him   to   forfeiture  of   seniority   of   rank   and   of
severe reprimand  is quashed and set aside. 
39

(iii) The appellant­Major R. Metri No.08585N is acquitted of
all the charges, charged with. 
(iv) The   appellant­Major   R.   Metri   No.08585N   is   directed   to
be   reinstated   forthwith   with   continuity   of   service.
However,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,
the   appellant­Major   R.   Metri   No.08585N   will   not   be
entitled   for   back­wages   for   the   period   during   which   he
was out of employment.  
55. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 04, 2022
40