TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort "the Act") and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). That apart, in sessions case No. 31 of 1984 the accused No. 1 above stood further charged under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, as extended to Delhi, and in Sessions case No. 32 of 1984 he was also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. Since, the evidence in all the above cases were considered to be common they were tried together for recording evidence, too, though it was said to have been recorded in S.C. No. 33 of 1984. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 60 seem to have been examined besides, marking various documents as exhibits. On the side of the defence, six persons, in all seem to have been examined by the different accused. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering all the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge in an elaborate judgment dated 24.7.1985 convicted them and imposed sentence as hereunder: Accused Conviction U/s Sentence imposed Accused No. 1 a) Sec. 3(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927. 10 years R.I. b) Sec. 5(b) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927. 2 years R.I. c) Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration. 5. On behalf of the appellant-State, it was contended that the reversal of the conviction of the respondent was under a gross misdirection on the part of the learned Single Judge in the High Court and mis-consideration of the scope of Sections 10 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was also urged that the High Court in acquitting the respondent overlooked vital material firmly connecting the respondent with the other conspirators resulting in grave and manifest error and injustice and, therefore, this court must restore the judgment of the learned trial Judge, by setting aside the decision of the High Court. It was further contended that the materials on record, so far as the respondent (accused No. 4) is concerned, themselves sufficiently substantiated the case against him and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well merited conviction of the respondent. In support thereof, our attention has been invited to the judgments of the courts in great detail and to the relevant materials on record. 6. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent (accused No. 4), the learned senior counsel contended that the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are shown to be 'secret' document or material and that besides their collection they were published or communicated to any other person, the charge under the said provision could not said to have been made out. Apparently, the inspiration for such a submission was the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Subba Rao and Anr.. We are unable to agree with this extreme submission on behalf of the respondent. This Court in Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC 569 had held: (a) that the word 'secret' in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 qualified official code or password and not any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information and (b) when the accused was found in conscious possession of the material (map - in that case) and no plausible explanation has been given for its possession, it has to be presumed as required by Section 3(2) of the Act that the same was obtained or collected by the appellant for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. Further, each one of the several acts enumerated in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one by the learned Trial Judge, particularly in the context of sufficient material available to also directly involve A-3 and A-4 in the common design of collecting materials relating to Army activities or defense secrets. The learned Judge in the High Court not only misconstrued the relevant principles of law but also is found to have gone amiss totally to the relevant and vital aspects of the materials and appears to have arrived at conclusions patently against weight or evidence, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The decision in Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. The State of Bombay (1961) 65 Bom. L.R. 660 was in the context of the need for joint trial claimed by the State of cases involving distinct acts/offences of criminal conspiracy against several accused and does not even otherwise in any manner lend support to the plea made on behalf of the respondent. 10. So far as the charge under Section 10B, IPC, is concerned, it stands proved by showing that two or more persons have agreed to do or cause to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means and that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the same. Where their common object or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent the act could not have been done for such a long time." 12. The learned Judge in the High Court seems to have committed grave error in completely overlooking such well settled principles and omitting to draw the necessary and reasonable conclusions flowing from the clinching and trustworthy evidence produced which sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondent, as rightly concluded by the learned trial Judge. As against the elaborate consideration of the roles of each one of the accused, operating as well knit group aimed at collecting vital data relating to militancy affairs and defence matters pertaining to the Government of India and communicating and passing on of such documents/information to the foreign U.S. Intelligent - 60 operators working at New Delhi, during the period between January 1978 and November 1983, the consideration by the High Court was summary and perfunctory as well. So far as respondent-A4 is concerned, the Defence Telephone Director (Ex.PW.14), a classified document restricted for use, was recovered from the premises No. 82, Sunder Nagar, which admittedly was being used by A-4 for his residence and business in running M/s Emge International. There ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the reason that it contained the names, number of fields formation and units of each individual officer they being also sensitive information from the defence point of view of the country, no further proof is required and his possession sufficiently substantiates that he or somebody on his behalf obtained or collected it for him. The mode of consideration and method of proof in a case like this, cannot be on the lines of a crime under the provisions of IPC inasmuch as Sub-section (2) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act engrafts the statutory presumptions to be drawn from the facts and that this would make all the difference in the nature of consideration required in respect of offences committed under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the criminal conspiracies relating to such offences, be it punishable under Section 120B, IPC. For all the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the Verdict of Acquittal recorded by the High Court in favour of A-4, by way of reversal, suffers patent error of law and perversity of approach and consequently require to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court, so far as the acquittal of respondent A-4, by allow....