Union Of India vs S.S.Bedi on 29 July, 2020
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs S.S.Bedi on 29 July, 2020
Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2013
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.... Appellants
Versus
LT. COL. S. S. BEDI …. Respondent (s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 2013
LT. COL. S. S. BEDI
.... Appellants
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
…. Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. These Appeals have been preferred against the
judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the
conviction of Ex. Lt. Col. S. S. Bedi by the General Court
Signature Not Verified
Martial was affirmed. However, the sentence of cashiering
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2020.07.29
16:30:56 IST
Reason:
from service was converted into a fine of Rs.50,000/- by
the Tribunal. An application filed by Ex. Lt. Col. S. S. Bedi
1
for granting permission to file an Appeal was dismissed by
the Tribunal. The Appellant has filed Criminal Appeal
No.997 of 2013 aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal
upholding the conviction ordered by the General Court
Martial and imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/-. The Union of
India has filed Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2013 aggrieved by
the alteration of sentence from cashiering from service to
imposition of fine. For the sake of convenience, we will
refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Criminal Appeal
No.997 of 2013.
2. The Appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army
Medical Corps on 24.07.1966. He was posted at Base
Hospital Lucknow as a Medical Specialist on 03.04.1984. A
complaint was made by two women against the Appellant
on 15.05.1986 that he misbehaved with them during
checkup by inappropriately touching their private parts.
The GOC-in-C directed attachment of the Appellant for
recording of summary evidence which was completed on
30.09.1986. Due to certain procedural irregularities, the
summary of evidence was cancelled on 01.10.1986 and a
de novo recording of summary of evidence was directed.
2 | Page
On the basis of the summary of evidence, the convening
authority directed trial of the Appellant by the General
Court Martial. On 29.11.1986, a charge sheet was filed
against the Appellant. He was charged for committing a
civil offence that is to say, using criminal force on two
women with intent to outrage their modesty, contrary to
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The
Appellant was held guilty by the General Court Martial on
09.12.1986 and was sentenced to be cashiered from
service on 14.01.1987.
3. The Petition filed by the Appellant under Section 164
(2) of the Army Act, 1950 was rejected on 30.05.1988. The
conviction and sentence of the General Court Martial were
challenged by the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court in
the year 2010. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant was
transferred by the Delhi High Court to the Principal Bench
of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal
upheld the conviction of the Appellant but converted the
punishment of cashiering to a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Being
dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the above Appeal. The
Respondents have also filed an appeal aggrieved by the
3 | Page
judgment of the Tribunal converting the sentence of
cashiering to a fine of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant submitted that the conviction of the
Appellant is unsustainable as the evidence on record was
not properly appreciated by both the General Court Martial
and the Tribunal. He submitted that the evidence of Mrs.
Gita Ray which is in favour of the Appellant has not been
taken into account. He further stated that the testimony
of Lt. Col. R. Sharma is also in favour of the Appellant. He
argued that the physical examination of both the
complainants was necessary for the ailments that were
being suffered by them. One was suffering with bronchial
asthma and the other had complaint of duodenal ulcer. He
stated that the Appellant is 78 years old and the fine of
Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited. In the event of
this Court not accepting his submissions, the sentence
should not be altered, according to Mr. Sridhar.
5. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Respondent contended that
there is ample evidence on record pointing to the guilt of
4 | Page
the Appellant which has been properly appreciated by the
General Court Martial and the Tribunal. The Respondents
are only concerned with the conversion of the penalty of
cashiering to a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The learned Additional
Solicitor General argued that the conversion of sentence
by the Tribunal was unwarranted. The Appellant had
misbehaved with two patients and the expert evidence
also shows that there was no necessity of the Appellant
touching the private parts of the complainants.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of the
Appellant that his conviction is unsustainable. A perusal of
the evidence of the complainants makes it clear that the
Appellant misbehaved with them during the course of their
physical examination. The evidence of PW-13 Lt. Col. R.
Sharma, Physician is to the effect that there was necessity
to examine the cardio vascular system of the patient who
was suffering with bronchial asthma which involved
exposure of chest/breasts and touching of the breasts.
However, squeezing of the breasts and nipples of a lady
patient was unnecessary. In so far as the other
complainant is concerned, Lt. Col. R. Sharma deposed that
5 | Page
her stomach had to be fully exposed right from the pubic
symphasis to the nipples and in case of complication of
peptic ulcer, even percussion of right side of the chest is
mandatory which involves touching of the breasts. Lt. Col.
Sharma testified that touching of private parts and
squeezing of nipples of such patient was totally
unnecessary. There was no motive for false implication of
the Appellant by the complainants, therefore, we are in
agreement with the conclusion of the General Court Martial
and the Tribunal that the Appellant is guilty of the charge
of using criminal force against two women patients.
7. Mr. Sridhar argued that even if the penalty imposed
by the Court Martial of cashiering from service is upheld,
forfeiture of all the pensionary benefits of the Appellant is
not automatic. He submitted that no order as
contemplated in Section 71 (h) of the Army Act, 1950
forfeiting his pension has been directed by the General
Court Martial. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled for
payment of pension. He relied upon the judgments of this
6 | Page
Court in Union of India v. Brig. P.K. Dutta (Retd.)1 and
Union of India v. P.D. Yadav.2
8. The punishment that may be inflicted in respect of
offences committed by persons under the Army Act and
convicted by the Court Martial are dealt with in Section 71.
Section 71 (d) refers to cashiering and 71 (h) provides for
forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay,
pension or other prescribed purposes. Forfeiture in the
case of a person sentenced to cashiering or dismissal from
the service of all arrears of pay and allowances and other
public money due to him at the time of such cashiering or
dismissal is provided in Section 71 (k). It is relevant to
refer to Regulation 16 (a) of the Army Pension Regulations,
1961, according to which the pension of an officer
cashiered from service may be forfeited at the discretion of
the President.
9. The Respondent in Union of India v. P.K. Dutta
(Retd.) (supra) was Court Martialed and awarded three
years’ rigorous imprisonment apart from being cashiered.
He approached the Delhi High Court complaining against
1
1995 Supp. (2) SCC 29
2
(2002) 1 SCC 405
7 | Page
the inaction of the authorities in not paying him retiral
benefits. The Delhi High Court held that cashiering does
not itself result in forfeiture of retiral benefits. It was
argued by the Union of India before this Court that
proceedings for forfeiture of the retiral benefits as
contemplated by Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension
Regulations were pending and the High Court ought not to
have allowed the Writ Petition filed by Brig. P.K. Dutta. This
Court was of the opinion that Section 71 relating to the
punishments awardable by the Courts Martials and
Regulation 16 (a) operate in distinct fields. Regulation 16
(a) contemplates a situation where an officer is cashiered
on dismissal or removal from service and provides how his
pension is to be dealt with. Section 71 (h) provides for a
punishment relating to forfeiture of pension at the
conclusion of Court Martial. Finally, it was concluded that
the nature and content of both the impositions is different
and there is no inconsistency between Section 71 (h) and
Regulation 16 (a).
10. In Union of India v. P.D. Yadav (supra) it was held
by this Court that punishment imposed under Section 71 of
8 | Page
the Army Act and order passed under Regulation 16 (a) of
the Pension Regulations are entirely different. The
submission made that imposition of punishment under
Section 71 of the Army Act and passing of an order under
Regulation 16 (a) would result in double jeopardy was not
accepted by this Court.
11. Punishments awardable by a Court Martial under
Section 71 include cashiering in case of officers and
forfeiture of service for the purpose of pension apart from
the other penalties. Admittedly, the punishment imposed
on the Appellant is only cashiering from service. There is
no dispute that Section 71 (h) forfeiting the pension of the
Appellant has not been resorted to by the Respondents.
There is merit in the submission of Mr. Sridhar that in the
absence of an order passed under Section 71 (h), the
pension of the Appellant cannot be forfeited. The
judgment of the Tribunal by which the punishment of
cashiering from service has been altered to imposition of a
fine of Rs.50,000/- is subject matter of this Appeal which
have been pending for the past seven years. There is
nothing on record to show that proceedings have been
9 | Page
initiated under Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension
Regulations.
12. By an order dated 20.01.2013, this Court stayed the
execution proceedings only. There may be a justification
for the Respondents for not initiating proceedings under
Regulation 16(a) of the Pension Regulations in view of the
pendency of these Appeals. The Respondents are at
liberty to commence proceedings under the Pension
Regulations for forfeiture of the pension of the Appellant, if
they so desire.
13. The Tribunal converted the sentence of cashiering
into a fine of Rs.50,000/- by holding that the Appellant has
a blemishless record of service. The Tribunal found the
imposition of the punishment of cashiering from service
shockingly disproportionate. The Tribunal also highlighted
the delay in the complaint made against the Appellant. We
are not convinced with the reasons given by the Tribunal
for converting the sentence from cashiering to imposition
of fine of Rs.50,000/-. We restore the punishment of
penalty of cashiering by taking into account the
reprehensible conduct of the Appellant abusing a position
10 | P a g e
of trust being a Doctor which is not condonable. However,
we direct the Respondents to consider the entire record of
service of the Appellant and his advanced age while taking
a decision to initiate proceedings under the Army Pension
Regulations. In case the Respondents decide not to initiate
proceedings under Army Pension Regulations, the
Appellant shall be entitled for all pensionary benefits. The
amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the Appellant shall be
refunded to him with interest accrued therefrom.
14. The Appeals are disposed of.
………………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
………………………………J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
………………………………J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
New Delhi,
July 29, 2020.
11 | P a g e