Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai, convicting an army man under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

A division bench of the high court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice PK Chavan was hearing an appeal filed by Nb Sub Mahendra Singh challenging the tribunal's order.

The Armed Forces Tribunal had convicted Singh under Section 7(c) (Offence relating to a public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment.

Section 7(c) of the act states that “Any public servant who performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine,” 

Singh argued that he was convicted by the Tribunal for the offence punishable under Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), though he was charged under Section 7 of the PC Act as it was in operation on the date of the incident, 22nd September 2015, thus reflecting a non-application of mind.

The bench noted that, without delving into the merits of the case, the order ought to be set aside since the petitioner could not have been convicted under Section 7(c) of the PC Act, as that section only came into force on 26th July 2018, after the incident in question. 

“Admittedly, a penal action cannot have retrospective effect and as such, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7(c) of the PC Act by the AFT cannot be sustained. The incident in question had taken place prior to the amendment i.e. on 23rd September, 2015,” the order reads.

The bench restored the case before the tribunal and directed it to decide the case on merits. It also stated that the petitioner shall not be arrested until further orders are passed by the tribunal.

The bench allowed the Union to file an application seeking cancellation of bail before the tribunal and permitted the petitioner to file an application seeking bail pending the hearing. 

The high court recorded that if an adverse order is passed, either in the application preferred by the petitioner for his enlargement on bail or if the petitioner's bail is cancelled, the same shall not come into operation for a period of four weeks from the date of the order for him to avail appropriate remedy.

Nb Sub Mahinder Singh vs UOI