THE OFFICER WAS SUBJECTED TO TRIAL BASED ON FORGED DOCUMENTS AND EARLIER DECISION OF ‘NOT GUILTY’ WAS BASED ON ENTIRE EVIDENCE AND CASE LAW’
CHANDIGARH: The re-opened General Court Martial (GCM) of Major Vikalp Purohit, has maintained the earlier verdict of ‘not guilty.’
After hearing the arguments of defence counsel Col SK Aggarwal (retd), the GCM presided over by Col JJ Abraham, again returned the verdict not guilty.
THE CASE
On August 20, 2010, Major Vikalp Purohit, then posted with General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), was arrested from Koksar on the ManaliLeh road. One of the charges was that he gained pecuniary benefits by selling army diesel. In this regard, ` 23,000 was recovered from his office. The second allegation was that he had loaned 1,200-litre diesel to road contractor Sahdev Sharma.
The Western Army commander did not allow the prosecution to put the major on trial. The major’s counsel, Colonel SK Aggarwal (retd), has said in the army commander’s opinion, no case was made out since “in a difficult terrain, it was their (army’s) duty to provide help.”
After that, in June 2012, the CBI submitted the final report to the sessions judge in Shimla and the case was handed over to the Army. Major Purohit was then tried at a GCM at Ambala where CBI superintendent of police R Upasak was among the prosecution witnesses. The authorities had laid two charges against the accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the case filed by SP, CBI Shimla.
The GCM had earlier found the officer ‘Not Guilty’ of both the charges on merit.
On revision, the defence counsel challenged the revision order arguing that it was issued without jurisdiction and that their arguments were not based on oral and documentary evidence as brought on record of the trial proceedings. The exact record of evidence was placed before the Court Martial, disputing all the contentious issues raised in the revision order. It was also argued that order virtually amounted to directing members to find the Accused ‘Guilty’.
Col Aggarwal also argued that the officer was subjected to trial based on fake and forged documents and that the earlier decision of ‘Not Guilty’ was based on the entire evidence and case law. The decision was legally sustainable warranting no revision of finding on the second charge.
The judge accepting the arguments of the defence, rejected the revision order and once again returned verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ by passing a legally sustainable speaking judgment.