Official Secrets Act interpretation: conscious possession and statutory presumption upheld; secrecy not required for listed documents.

Recovery of a concealed map from the accused's house, corroborated by police evidence and the panchnama, supported an inference of conscious possession and of having obtained or collected it for a purpose prejudicial to State safety or interests; the statutory presumption under section 3(2) applied, so the finding was upheld. On the construction of section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the word "secret" qualifies only "official code or pass word" and not the listed items such as a sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information; secrecy is therefore not an additional requirement for conviction in respect of those materials, and the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the map was obtained or collected by the appellant and was in his conscious possession; (ii) Whether, for an offence under section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information must itself be secret.

Issue (i): Whether the map was obtained or collected by the appellant and was in his conscious possession.

Analysis: The recovery of the map from the appellant's house was supported by the evidence of the police officers who participated in the raid and was corroborated by the panchnama. The explanation for taking panch witnesses from Bhuj was accepted. The concealment of the map in the house, coupled with the absence of any explanation from the appellant, justified the inference that he knowingly possessed it and had obtained or collected it for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. The statutory presumption under section 3(2) was attracted.

Conclusion: The finding that the map was obtained or collected by the appellant and was in his conscious possession was upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, for an offence under section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information must itself be secret.

Analysis: The text of section 3(1)(c), read with section 3(2), shows that the word "secret" qualifies only "official code or pass word" and not the later expressions "sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information". The punctuation and structure of the provision support that construction, and the presumption clause uses separate wording for sketchs, plans, models, articles, notes, documents and information. Accordingly, secrecy is not an additional requirement for those items.

Conclusion: It was held that secrecy is not for conviction under section 3(1)(c) in respect of a sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained on both issues and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the word "secret" qualifies only "official code or pass word", while the other listed materials need only fall within the prohibited utility or disclosure criteria; possession of such material may also be inferred through the statutory presumption where the facts justify it.

---