Junior Warrant Officer faces court martial for cutting auto pilot cables of MI-17 helicopter

The third charge has been levelled under Section 42(e) of the AF Act, 1950 which pertains to neglecting to obey a general order. It accuses the JEL of neglecting to obey certain instructions by entering the aircraft of 152 Helicopter Unit without authorization during the inspection.

A fourth charge has been levelled under Section 65 AF Act, 1950 pertaining to an act prejudicial to good order and air force discipline. Under this, he has been accused of improperly and without reasonable excuse entering the aircraft when the daily inspection of said aircraft was under progress.

A fifth charge has been levelled under Section 60 of AF Act, 1950 which states,” Having been duly sworn before a court competent under the Air Force Act, 1950 to administer an oath or affirmation, making a false statement which he knew to be false in that he at Air Force Station Sarsawa, having been duly sworn as a witness before a Court of Inquiry assembled by Air Officer Commanding 30 Wing Air Force, made the following statement when questioned by the Court with respect to number of times he entered the aircraft, which he knew to be false, namely; “I entered the aircraft two times, out of which, second time I entered the cockpit”.

In another General Court Martial, conducted by the Army in Amritsar, a Major has been sentenced to dismissal from service for having stolen a digital tablet from a fellow officer in Jalandhar. The officer had been charged under Section 52 (f) of the Army Act which deals with theft of any property belonging to the Government, or to any military, naval or air force mess, band or institution, or to any person subject to military, naval or air force law.

The initial investigation into the matter had been handled by the Jalandhar Police as a complaint had been lodged with the local police after the officer lost his tablet. When the police investigated the matter the tablet was traced to a shop where it had been sold by the accused officer. The Army ordered an inquiry subsequently into the matter and the police complaint was withdrawn as the matter was dealt with under Army Act. A court of inquiry had been ordered into the incident which found the Major blameworthy.

Sources inform that the Major has protested his innocence at the trial and pointed out that he had been on leave when the alleged theft took place and that there has not been any match of his handwriting with the document pertaining to the sale of the tablet. However, the court martial has awarded the Major a sentence of dismissal which will be confirmed by the convening authority of the court martial before it is put into effect.