Supreme Court overturns conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, reinstates Major: Union of India vs. Major R. Metri (2022) INSC 186

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04 April 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 186

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a confession obtained under questionable circumstances be the sole basis for a conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a Major in the Indian Army, who was accused of corruption. This judgment delves into the nuances of evidence admissibility, particularly concerning confessional statements and the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The core issue revolves around whether the confessional statement of Major R. Metri was voluntary, and whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in overturning the General Court Martial’s (GCM) decision. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the AFT’s reasoning to determine if the conviction was sustainable.

Case Background

In 2008, Major R. Metri was working as the Recruiting Medical Officer at the Army Recruiting Office in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Col. Anil Singh Rathore was the Director of the same office. During this period, several Army Recruitment Rallies took place in various locations, including Udaipur, Dausa, Jodhpur, Ganganagar, and Ajmer.

The prosecution alleged that during the Udaipur rally in December 2008, Major Metri was approached by other Recruiting Medical Officers, who asked for his help in clearing certain candidates. Initially reluctant, Major Metri allegedly assisted in clearing some candidates. Later, he was informed that ₹65,000 would be paid to him as his share, which was deposited into his father-in-law’s account.

Similarly, during the Dausa rally in January 2009, Major Metri was again requested to help candidates. He allegedly received ₹20,000, deposited by the wife of another officer, as his share. The prosecution further alleged that malpractices continued in subsequent rallies in Jodhpur and Ganganagar.

In July 2009, while at a rally in Ajmer, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed regarding malpractices in the Army Recruitment Rally. Following media reports implicating Major Metri, he allegedly confessed to his involvement to Col. Anil Singh Rathore, which led to a written statement.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with the offense of a public servant taking gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

“Section 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.—Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

• ✓ Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950: This section pertains to the offense of committing a civil offense.

“Section 69. Civil offences.—Subject to the provisions of section 70, any person subject to this Act who at any place in or beyond India commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section shall be liable to be tried by a court-martial, and, on conviction, be punishable as follows, that is to say,— (a) if the offence is one which would be punishable under any law in force in India with death, he shall be liable to suffer death or any less punishment assigned by this Act; and (b) in any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment assigned for the offence by the aforesaid law or any less punishment assigned by this Act.”

• ✓ Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950: This section deals with the offense of an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

“Section 63. Violation of good order and discipline.—Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and military discipline shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”

• ✓ Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: This section defines the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Armed Forces Tribunal in matters of appeal against court-martial.

“15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters of appeal against court-martial.—
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable under this Act in relation to matters of appeal against any order, decision, finding or sentence passed by a court-martial or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order, decision, finding or sentence passed by a court-martial may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
(3) Every appeal under sub-section (2) shall be preferred within such period as may be prescribed.
(4) The Tribunal shall allow an appeal against conviction by a court-martial where—
(a) the finding of the court-martial is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever; or
(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.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Union of India:

• ✓ The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has a limited scope of interference under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Reappreciation of evidence by the AFT is not permissible and interference is warranted only on specific grounds mentioned in the Act.
• ✓ The ASG contended that the AFT erred in holding that Major Metri’s confessional statement was not voluntary. He argued that at the time of the statement, Major Metri was not an accused, and therefore, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not apply.
• ✓ The ASG submitted that the AFT itself acknowledged Major Metri’s financial misconduct, and therefore, the punishment of cashiering from service should not have been set aside.

Arguments by Major R. Metri:

• ✓ The counsel for Major Metri argued that the AFT rightly held that the confessional statement was not voluntary. Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
• ✓ He submitted that the news of Major Metri’s involvement was already published in newspapers before the confession, and there was discussion between police and army officials. The AFT correctly considered the possibility that Major Metri was forced to confess to save higher officials.
• ✓ The counsel argued that prosecution witnesses’ evidence shows that no one was declared medically fit despite being unfit. Actual tests were conducted by independent members, and the medical team only assisted. There was no evidence to show that Major Metri received money from touts for clearing candidates.
• ✓ He argued that the ₹20,000 was a loan from Major Srinivas, which was returned. The ₹65,000 was a loan repayment by Major Prasad to Major Metri’s father-in-law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was justified in interfering with the findings of the General Court Martial (GCM).
2. Whether the confessional statement of Major R. Metri was voluntary and admissible as evidence.
3. Whether the conviction of Major R. Metri under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, was sustainable.
4. Whether the conviction of Major R. Metri under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, was sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Union of India vs. Sandeep Kumar [(2019) 10 SCC 496]: The Court clarified that while the AFT’s powers are wide, they do not allow for reversing findings merely based on a different possible view. However, the AFT can re-appreciate evidence to determine if the findings of the court martial are legally sustainable.
• ✓ The State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad [(1962) 3 SCR 10]: The Court reiterated that being in police custody alone does not imply that a statement was compelled, but it is a relevant factor to consider.
• ✓ Chandra Kumar Chopra vs. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 369]: The Court considered this case in the context of whether the punishment of cashiering from service was warranted, but did not directly apply it to the facts of the case.
• ✓ Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403]: The Court applied the principles laid down in this case, holding that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and need to be voluntary and corroborated, which was lacking in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The lack of voluntariness in Major Metri’s confessional statement, given the surrounding circumstances and the media reports.
• ✓ The absence of corroborating evidence to support the confessional statement.
• ✓ The evidence indicating that Major Metri was part of a team that only assisted in medical examinations, and could not independently declare a candidate fit.
• ✓ The fact that the money deposited in Major Metri’s account was either a loan or repayment of a loan.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the circumstances surrounding the confession and the nature of the financial transactions, than the purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and circumstances surrounding Major Metri’s confession and financial transactions. It rejected the argument that the confession was voluntary, highlighting the influence of media reports and the possibility of coercion. The court also analyzed the evidence to conclude that the financial transactions were either loans or repayments, not illegal gratifications. This led the court to overturn the convictions by both the GCM and the AFT.

The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and need to be voluntary and corroborated, which was lacking in this case. The court also noted the absence of evidence showing that any medically unfit candidates were cleared, further undermining the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual analysis of the evidence, rather than a purely legal interpretation. This approach led the court to overturn the convictions and order the reinstatement of Major Metri.

The Court also considered the alternative interpretations of the evidence, particularly regarding the confessional statement and the financial transactions. It rejected the prosecution’s view that the confession was voluntary and that the financial transactions were illegal gratifications. The Court found the alternative view, that the confession was not voluntary and that the financial transactions were either loans or repayments, to be more plausible given the evidence.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
• ✓ Confessions must be voluntary, and courts must consider the circumstances under which they are made.
• ✓ The Armed Forces Tribunal has the power to re-appreciate evidence to determine if the findings of a court-martial are legally sustainable.
• ✓ The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• ✓ In cases of financial misconduct, the accused has the right to explain the source of funds.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the need for strong, corroborated evidence in criminal cases, especially those involving confessions. It also clarifies the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal in reviewing court-martial decisions. This case serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based solely on weak evidence or confessions obtained under questionable circumstances. It also highlights the need for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• ✓ Major R. Metri was acquitted of all charges.
• ✓ Major R. Metri was directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service.
• ✓ Major R. Metri was not entitled to back wages for the period he was out of employment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The confession must be voluntary, and courts must consider the circumstances under which it is made. Additionally, the Armed Forces Tribunal has the power to re-appreciate evidence if the findings of the court martial are legally unsustainable.

This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces existing ones. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of voluntariness in confessions and the need for corroborative evidence. It also clarified the scope of the AFT’s powers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Major R. Metri, setting aside his conviction under Section 63 of the Army Act. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, thereby upholding the AFT’s decision to overturn Major Metri’s conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court emphasized the importance of voluntary confessions and the need for corroborative evidence, reinforcing the principle that convictions cannot be based solely on weak evidence. The judgment underscores the necessity for a thorough examination of facts and circumstances, especially in cases involving allegations of corruption and the admissibility of confessional statements.