IMPORTANT POINT
Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.

ORDER

Dr. Anand, J.-We have heard the applicant who has appeared in person at length.

2. The applicant took voluntary retirement from the Indian Navy while holding the rank of a Captain on 27th October, 1987. While on his way to USA on May 30, 1988, he was detained at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay, His suitcase was taken away from him and he was taken to the Sahar Police Station and locked up. He was alleged to be carrying atomic and defence secrets with him. His successive applications for release on bail were rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Sessions Court and by the Bombay High Court. An order granting him bail on "medical grounds" was cancelled by this Court. After obtaining consent of the then Attorney General of India, Mr. K. Parasaran (respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 26(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and authorisation from the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy Mr. S.K. Bhandarkar (respondent No. 2 herein) for proceeding against the applicant and prosecuting him for the various offences alleged against him, he was committed by the learned committing Magistrate to stand his trial in the court of Sessions. Charges for offences including the offences under Section 3/6 Official Secrets Act and Sections 18/19 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 were framed against him. Against the order for framing of charges, the applicant unsuccessfully approached the Bombay High Court through revision application No. 96/89. The applicant thereafter filed a criminal writ Petition in the High Court once again inter alia calling in question the order for framing of charges and during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High Court also alleging that the charges against him were vitiated by fraud on the basis of the allegations made in the application, committed by the State and the Public Prosecutor. While matters rested thus, on 26.4.1991 the learned Sessions Judge trying the case, found that the prosecution had not obtained any sanction to prosecute the applicant and concluded that in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the trial was vitiated and accordingly discharged the applicant. The High Court while considering the criminal revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge declined to interfere but found that since the case had travelled beyond the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. an order of acquittal and no one of discharge was warranted and converting the order of discharge into an order of acquittal, dismissed the petition filed by the State on 12.10.1991. Though, technically the criminal writ petition filed by the applicant had thus been rendered infructuous, a learned Single Judge, after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the State, heard the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition and made an order passing strictures against the State and Public Prosecutor virtually accepting various pleas raised by the applicant alleging commission of fraud by the special prosecutor and the State. The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the order of the High Court, filed SLP (Cri.) No. 4178/91 (Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 1993) in this Court. On March 16, 1993, a Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.10.1991 passed in the criminal miscellaneous petition and the criminal writ petition and directed that in view of the order of discharge made in favour of the applicant by the trial Court, criminal writ petition would stand dismissed as infructuous. The remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the State and the Public Prosecutor were also directed to be expunged. This Court expressed its disapproval of the manner in which the High Court had proceeded with the case.

3. The order of discharge made by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court was also challenged by the State through SLP (Crl.) 986/92 (criminal appeal No. 276/93). A