In Brief
Two Army personnel were convicted by a District Court Martial of theft of two pistols and sentenced to imprisonment with dismissal. The Armed Forces Tribunal set aside the conviction, relying partly on misreading of Army Order 256 of 1972 and rejecting confessional statements and secondary evidence. The Supreme Court held the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Confessions to military officers (not police) are admissible under the Evidence Act. Secondary evidence of lost original slips was properly admitted. The Tribunal lacks power to merely re-appreciate evidence; it can only interfere for legal error or material irregularity. The Court allowed Union's appeals restoring conviction but reduced sentence to time already served.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.