In-camera proceedings under the Official Secrets Act do not bar defence copies or override criminal procedure.

Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 was construed as an enabling provision permitting in-camera proceedings to protect State security, not as a non obstante clause overriding criminal procedure. The Court held that its opening words do not bar the accused from receiving copies of witness statements or documents needed for defence, because such a restrictive reading would impair fair procedure and constitutional reasonableness. Counsel's refusal to produce a notebook containing privileged instructions was protected by privilege, while any improper disclosure outside court remained punishable under the Act. The High Court's contrary interpretation was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 merely enables exclusion of the public during proceedings in camera or also bars supply of copies of witness statements and documents to the accused, and whether its opening words operate as a non obstante clause overriding the criminal procedure.

Analysis: The provision was read as an enabling safeguard intended to permit exclusion of the public where publication of evidence would prejudice State security. Its opening words, "in addition and without prejudice to any powers which a Court may possess", were held not to constitute a non obstante clause. The section was construed as a single composite sentence concerned with the ground for in-camera hearing, not as creating a separate bar against the accused obtaining copies of statements or documents. Such a restrictive reading would unjustly impair the accused's right of defence and would be inconsistent with the requirements of fair procedure and constitutional reasonableness. The Court also held that counsel's refusal to produce a notebook containing privileged instructions was protected by privilege, and that any improper disclosure outside court remained punishable under the Act.

Conclusion: Section 14 does not override the criminal procedure code or deprive the accused of copies of statements and documents, and its opening words are not a non obstante clause. The High Court's contrary interpretation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the matter was to proceed before an available Magistrate in accordance with the interpretation placed on Section 14.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision authorising in-camera proceedings for reasons of State security, expressed in enabling and non-prejudicial terms, does not by implication extinguish the accused's procedural right to obtain copies needed for defence unless such exclusion is stated in clear and specific language.

---