Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal's Order in Col. S.K. Jain Case: Bribery Cleared
Case Title: S.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016
Citation:2025 INSC 1215
Bench:Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by
Colonel (Retd.) S.K. Jain, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's
(AFT) decision that found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to
military discipline for unauthorized possession of ammunition, while
exonerating him of corruption charges.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe
delivered the verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016, affirming
that the AFT acted within its powers in substituting Jain's earlier
conviction under the Arms Act, 1959 with a lesser charge under
Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, pertaining to acts prejudicial to
good order and military discipline.
The appellant was commissioned into Army Ordnance Corps of Indian
Army. He was, on 27.08.2006, promoted as Colonel (Selection Grade)
and was posted as Commandant of Northern Command Vehicle Depot, (NCVD)
Udhampur. The appellant was handling motorcycles (Royal Enfield)
intake in the command after the inspection test. One Shri Sumesh
Magotra, a contractor from M/s Vivek Motors, Udhampur, (complainant)
met the appellant on 17.09.2008 in NCVD. The appellant demanded
Rs.100/- per motorcycle for passing the same in the inspection test.
The complainant after four days met Commanding Officer of Northern
Command, Counter Intelligence Unit, and explained the difficulty
faced by him. Thereafter, the complainant again met the aforesaid
Commanding Officer between 20th to 23rd September, 2008 wherein he
again narrated the harassment faced by him. The complaint disclosed
to the Commanding Officer that he was under pressure to make a
payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash to the appellant and was due to make
payment on 27.09.2008. The complainant thereupon made photocopies of
twenty currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each which were
included in hundred numbers of Rs.100/- denomination currency notes.
The complainant on 27.09.2008 between 10.00 AM to 10.15 AM went to
office of NCVD where he handed over an envelope containing currency
notes of Rs.10,000/-. A search was carried out by Board of Officers
and during the search, the appellant was given an offer to frisk and
search the Board of Officers team, which he declined. In the search,
a white envelope containing hundred numbers of Rs.100/- denomination
notes was found by Havildar D.K. Singh, which was kept under the
computer table in the office of the appellant. The Board of Officers
also found a sum of Rs.28,000/- kept in the briefcase of the
appellant which was also kept in the office. The Board of Officers
further found ammunition from the possession of the appellant. An
investigation was carried out wherein a prima facie case was found
against the appellant. He was thereafter arrested.
Colonel Jain, who served as Commandant of the Northern Command
Vehicle Depot (NCVD) in Udhampur, was initially tried by a General
Court Martial (GCM) in 2009 on three allegations - demanding a ₹10,000
bribe, possession of ammunition without authorization, and
unexplained cash of ₹28,000. The GCM found him guilty of the first
two charges and ordered his dismissal from service.
However, on appeal, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in 2012 held
that the corruption charge was unproven and that the ammunition
found was old, potentially dischargeable stock from the depot, with
no evidence of any unlawful intent. While clearing him of
corruption, the Tribunal ruled that failure to properly account for
and dispose of the ammunition constituted a disciplinary lapse,
warranting conviction under Section 63. The AFT reduced his penalty
from dismissal to compulsory retirement with full pensionary and
retiral benefits.
Jain challenged this substitution before the Supreme Court, arguing
that since the Tribunal had held there was no unlawful possession,
it could not convict him under Section 63. The Union of India
defended the ruling, stating that the possession, though not
criminal, was a clear violation of military regulations.
Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court observed:
"The factual foundation clearly discloses an act or omission on the
part of the appellant which is prejudicial to good order and
military discipline. The Tribunal acted strictly within the
statutory framework, balancing the disciplinary needs of service
with fairness to the individual."
The Bench further noted that the Tribunal was empowered under
Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to substitute
findings and modify punishments where warranted by evidence.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court concluded a legal battle
spanning over 17 years, affirming the principle that while
corruption must be proven with clear evidence, negligence affecting
military order and discipline cannot be ignored.
Download the Judgment S. K. Jain Vs Union of India & Ors