UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS MAJOR R. METRI Case

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS MAJOR R. METRI  Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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 2nd  March, 2017, passed in O.A. (Appeal) No.2 of 2014

and 30th 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 2nd 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 28th 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 16th  December, 2008 and 18th  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 28th

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 respondentofficer   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 16th 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 respondentofficer 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 11th  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 13th July, 2009, certain

reports   were   published   in   Media   at   Ajmer.     In   the   media

reports, the name of three officers, namely, (1) the respondentofficer; (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 14th 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 15th  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.4­Col. Balraj Singh Sohi.     On 16th  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 18th July, 2009.  

14. On 14th 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 14th 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 9th April, 2010.  

16. The   GCM   proceedings   were   ordered   to   be   instituted

against the respondent­officer and five others on 28th  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 28th 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 29th  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 2nd 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 others1

.  

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 others2

.

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 others3

.

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 respondentofficer being already involved in the FIR, registered on 11th July,

2009, was already published in the newspapers on 13th  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   respondentofficer 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   courtmartial.­ (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 subsection (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 28th  April,

2013, as confirmed by the GOC vide order dated 29th 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.1­Col.  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 respondentofficer 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 respondentofficer.  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.1­Col.   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.1­Col. 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.1­Col. 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 9th July, 2009 for the Recruitment Rally to be held on

11th July, 2009.   He states about the news being published in

newspapers on 13th  July, 2009 about the Police taking action

against the touts.  He states that the respondent­officer came to

28

him on 14th 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 15th  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.4­Col. Balraj

Singh Sohi.  

38. P.W.1­Col. 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 13th

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 13th July, 2009 were given by him, it is

29

not denied that he has interacted with the Police on 13th July,

2009.  

39. It could thus be seen that when the respondent­officer

allegedly made an oral confession on 14th July, 2009 and gave a

written statement on 15th 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   11th  May,   2009   and   21st  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.1­Col. Anil Singh

Rathore  and   P.W.3­Col.   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.1­Col. 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   respondentofficer had informed him about the phone calls as early as in

December,   2008.     Insofar   as   P.W.3­Col.   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 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 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 11th May, 2009 and 18th/19th 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 14th

July, 2009, he received local newspapers, which were full of

news on recruitment racket. He has also admitted that, on 14th

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.1­Col.  Anil  Singh  Rathore,  P.W.2­  Brigadier

Arun Kumar Tuli and P.W.3­Col. 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 14th July, 2009 and 15th July, 2009, i.e., the dates of

oral/written confession. 

44. This Court in the case of  Sahadevan  and  another  vs.

State of Tamil Nadu4

, 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.1­Col. 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 respondentofficer, 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 respondentofficer had given birth to a girl child on 16th 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 father­inlaw 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 2nd  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