The Armed Forces Tribunal has upheld the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded by a General Court Martial (GCM) to a Colonel for abetting the transport of narcotics, financial misappropriation and professional misconduct while he was commanding an Assam Rifles battalion.The Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench, comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, in its order dated September 17, ruled that on merits, it did not find any infraction in the findings or sentence awarded by the GCM, and that the application challenging the trial was hopelessly barred by limitation.The appellant, ex-Col BS Barari, had joined the Army in January 1969 in the ranks and was later commissioned as an officer in December 1977. He was promoted to the rank of Colonel in June 1997 and appointed Commanding Officer of 21 Assam Rifles in Nagaland.In January 2000, four charges were levelled against him.The first was under Section 69 of the Army Act for abetting the transport of 3,000 kg of ganja; the second was under Section 63 for improperly instructing a rifleman of his unit to escort a civilian truck along with the unit convoy; the third was under Section 52(f) for drawing the pay of six casual porters amounting to Rs 59,676 while fully knowing that the said porters had not been employed; and the fourth was under Section 52(b) of the Army Act for misappropriating Rs 20,472 contributed by unit personnel.After a Court of Inquiry (COI) and the recording of a Summary of Evidence (SOE), a GCM was convened in January 2000. In March 2000, the GCM sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and ordered that he be cashiered from service.Upon confirmation of the GCM proceedings in September 2000, a portion of the imprisonment was remitted and he was exonerated of the charge of misappropriating Rs 20,472. A mercy petition filed by him in April 2003 was rejected in March 2004.During the proceedings, the Colonel had pleaded not guilty to the charges, averring that he had been framed due to professional jealousy, that certain mandatory procedures had not been complied with and that the GCM had delivered perverse findings. He had also contended that he had been medically unfit to face the trial.The Bench, however, rejected these contentions in light of the evidence on record and other material available. Observing that the Chandigarh Bench had become functional in 2009 and the present application was filed in 2010, it held that under the AFT Act, any order passed prior to November 2006 — that is, three years before the Bench became functional — could not be entertained unless accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.No such application was filed, making the case barred by limitation.