Unreliable witness testimony and no substantive value for Section 164 statements defeated the conviction under the Official Secrets Act.

The Supreme Court held that a conviction under the Indian Official Secrets Act could not be sustained on the testimony of the principal witness because his evidence was unreliable. Material inconsistencies in his cross-examination on who supplied the file, who directed the typing, and who compared copies with the original made his version unsafe to accept. The Court also held that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and could not be treated as proof that the witness had been won over. On that basis, the conviction failed and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's conviction for an offence under Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act could be sustained on the testimony of the principal witness, and whether the witness's prior statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could properly be used to support a finding that he had been won over.

Analysis: The Court held that even if the witness was not treated as an accomplice, the conviction still depended on whether he was a truthful and reliable witness. His cross-examination before and after the framing of charge disclosed material inconsistencies about who gave him the file, who directed the typing, and who compared the copies with the original. These contradictions made his version unsafe to accept. The Court also held that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not substantive evidence and could not be used as proof that the witness had been won over. The witness's prior statement could not be relied upon in the manner adopted by the appellate court below.

Conclusion: The witness was found unreliable, and the conviction could not stand on his testimony alone. The respondent was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a witness found to be unreliable, and a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence and cannot be used as proof of the facts asserted therein.

---