Supreme Court Weekly Digest [October 8 - 15, 2025]

Army Act, 1950 - Sections 63, 69, 70, 162 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 15(6) - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 25(1-B) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 222 - Substitution of Conviction - Act Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline - Possession of Ammunition - Scope of AFT's Power to Substitute Finding – Held, Section 15(6)(a) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, vests the Tribunal with the power to substitute a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh - This power is in pari materia with Section 162 of the 1950 Act and akin to Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits conviction for a lesser or cognate offence on the same set of facts - Noted that the legislative intent is that the appellate forum is not denuded of power to render a lawful finding where the evidence sustains a different, though related, offence - The twin conditions for exercising this power are fulfilled: (i) the accused could have been lawfully found guilty of the substituted offence by the original court-martial based on the evidence presented; and (ii) the Tribunal may pass a new sentence - The concurrent findings of fact regarding the recovery of ammunition from the appellant's possession were not assailed as perverse - Since the recovery of old, aged ammunition was established, this factual foundation clearly disclosed an act or omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63 of the 1950 Act, reflecting the appellant's failure to follow mandatory procedure for disposal and accounting of old ammunition - The appellant could lawfully have been convicted under Section 63 of the 1950 Act based on the proved facts - The scope of interference by the Supreme Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the 2007 Act is limited - It would interfere only if the order is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious - This exercise of discretion was found to be just and proportionate, balancing disciplinary needs with fairness, and thus did not call for any interference - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on: Union of India & Ors. v. R. Karthik, (2020) 2 SCC 782; Paras 17-27] S.K. Jain v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 994 : 2025 INSC 1215 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528 - Inherent Power of High Court - Review/Recall of Own Order - Held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] cannot be invoked to review or recall its own judgment or order on merits, as the power of review is specifically barred under Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC], except for the purpose of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors - The inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code - Held that High Court grievously erred in recalling/reviewing its reasoned order dated January 16, 2025, on the ground of an "inadvertent clerical mistake" when the subsequent application was, in effect, a prayer for review of the earlier order by acceding to the initial prayer for transfer of investigation, which the earlier order had consciously declined - The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders dated January 24, 2025 (recalling the earlier order) and February 4, 2025 (transferring investigation to CBI), as they were based on an erroneous premise of a clerical mistake and amounted to an impermissible review of a reasoned order passed under the inherent jurisdiction - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another (1990) 2 SCC 437; Para 18, 20, 26-31] State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984 : 2025 INSC 1205 CBI Investigation - Extraordinary Powers of Constitutional Courts - Reiterated that the extraordinary power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations - Such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police - Held that it must be necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. [Relied on State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 2010 3 SCC 517; Paras 12-41] Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 999 : 2025 INSC 1224 Civil Procedure – Compromise/Settlement – Mediation – Supreme Court – Power of Trust, Simplicity, and Efficacy in Dispute Resolution - A protracted litigation, spanning almost four decades, was successfully resolved through mediation efforts undertaken by Senior Advocate, appointed by...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest [October 8 - 15, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags