On 14.2.1985, the accused was found guilty of charge No.
In respect of charge No.
The Confirming Authority, however, ordered, under Section 160 read with Rule 68, revision of the findings of the GCM for recording fresh evidence and reconsideration.
These orders companyfirming the findings and sentences against the accused were challenged by him successfully in the High Court in the writ proceedings from which the impugned judgment arises.
Writ Petition No.
All such witnesses were allowed to be cross examined in terms of relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Apart from the retracted companyfession of a companyaccused or the testimony of certain witnesses, referred to by the defence as accomplices, there was ample independent evidence to fully support the findings reached by the GCM.
Two charges were framed against the accused in respect of articles alleged to had been stolen on 27.9.1983 and 9.2.1984 from the Department of Salvage.
1 relating to the incident of 27.9.1983, the accused was acquitted.
Additional evidence was let in as permitted by the Act and the Rules and as required by the order of revision.
S.C. Chatrath, Capt.
On examination of these witnesses, the GCM found the accused guilty of both the charges and sentenced him to be cashiered and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Additional evidence was taken in terms of Section 160 read with Rule 68 by examining Brig.
Subsequent to the order of the Confirming Authority, the GCM was again companystituted and proceedings companymenced against the accused.
Raghunandan, Shri Bhojraj and others.
9319 of 1988, the High Court by the judgment under appeal found that sufficient opportunity was number given to the respondent also referred to as the accused to cross examine witnesses summoned after the order of revision or to let in fresh evidence to rebut their evidence.
The accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused thereupon filed a petition before the Government of India under Section 164 2 of the Act.
The Government of India rejected the petition vide order dated 25.1.1988.
So stating, the High Court, without quashing the proceedings, directed reconstitution of the GCM so as to afford a fresh opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witnesses examined after the order of revision as well as let in fresh evidence on his behalf to rebut their evidence.
The Confirming Authority companyfirmed the findings and sentences rendered by the GCM by Order dated 29.8.1986.
K. Thommen, J. The appellant the Union of India challenges the judgment of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the revised findings of the General Court Martial the GCM and the sentences imposed, as companyfirmed by the Order of the companypetent authority dated 29.8.1986, in respect of the present respondent J.S. Brar, who was a Major in the Indian Army until he was cashiered by the aforesaid Order.
Allowing the Civil Misc.
