Observing that "elementary mistakes" were made in conducting criminal trials under court martials, Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the appointment of trained prosecutors and presiding officers for such cases, as otherwise it may "turn into acquittals".

"We would like to observe that in conduct of Court Martial proceedings some elementary mistakes are committed," the Tribunal said, adding neither the Judge Advocate nor the prosecutors are properly trained to conduct such trials.

The observations were made by the Tribunal, headed by Justice A K Mathur, while pronouncing the judgement in a case where one Major S S Chillar had sought quashing of the order of his dismissal from service in November 1987 on various charges including illegal possession of a hand grenade.

"The authorities, should appoint proper prosecutors for conducting such criminal cases in Court Martial proceedings, likewise, a trained Presiding Officer, who knows how to conduct the criminal trial," the two-member Bench said.

Pointing out that trials in court martial proceedings relating to civil offence like murder are not properly conducted like a regular trial, Justice Mathur said "the result is that they will turn into acquittal."

Stressing on the requirement for "overhauling of the procedure" of conducting criminal trials under court martials, the Bench said "presiding officers should be sent for training in a criminal court, where trials are conducted, and likewise, the prosecutors and the Judge Advocate."

Acquitting Chillar in the case, the Tribunal said the finding of the Court Martial was "totally defective" as the accused was not found guilty of possessing the particular hand grenade recovered from under his pillow.

"The gravamen of charge is possession of a particular explosive substance. When that explosive substance is not established, the whole charge fails on the face of it," it said, adding finding Chillar guilty by "the Court Martial authorities is totally illegal and unsustainable in law.