https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299218 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. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299218 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299218