Armed Forces Tribunal sets aside dismissal of JCO

The Armed Forces Tribunal has set aside the four-year rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service awarded by a general court martial (GCM) to a junior commissioned officer (JCO) for allegedly accepting a bribe from an ex-soldier who wanted bid for running a canteen at an Army establishment.

Ruling that the prosecution had left too many gaps that impeded its case from being proven to the hilt, the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Shailendra Shukla and Vice-Admiral AR Karve directed that the petitioner be released from jail forthwith and he would be entitled to all consequential benefits from his dismissal being set aside.

The JCO, then posted as an upper division clerk with the Military Engineer Service at Pune, was tried on two charges under Section 69 of the Army Act read with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act  13.

According to the charges, he had received Rs 50,000 from the ex-soldier to facilitate allotment of a contract for running a wet canteen at his establishment and he had enriched himself illicitly by securing pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs 9.20 lakh that were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

A conversation with the JCO, where had demanded a bribe of Rs 2.5 lakh, had been recorded by the ex-soldier, and thereafter a complaint was made before the army authorities, following which a trap was laid. Currency notes worth Rs 50,000, whose serial numbers were recorded, were used.

The Tribunal, after examining the proceedings of the GCM and the record of the case opined that it could not be proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had demanded a bribe from the complainant and that he had accepted Rs 50,000 as part of the total bribe money.

Among other observations, the Tribunal held that there were no independent eye-witnesses, the trap money was not treated with phenolphthalein powder as is the norm, the seizure memo of the articles found in the seized bag other than Rs. 50,000 was not prepared on the spot.

Further, the complainant did not produce his mobile phone during the trial claiming it to be non-functional. In addition, the spy devices which were used at the time of the trap, as arranged by Intelligence officers, were also not produced, along with their contents.