IMPORTANT POINT
Each one of the several acts enumerated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, by themselves will constitute, individually, an offending act to attract the said provision and it is not necessary that only one or more of them and particularly publishing or communication of the same need be conjointly proved for convicting one charged with the offence of obtaining or collecting secret official records etc.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal against acquittal-Scope-Where the High Court is shown to have completely failed in appreciating true effect of materials brought on record and its findings are erroneous, perverse and result in miscarriage of justice-Supreme Court held justified to interfere, all the more so when High Court has chosen to reverse a verdict of conviction recorded by Trial Judge, under a total misconception of principles of law as well as vital and essential facts proved-Official Secrets Act, 1923-Sections 3, 5 and 9- Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120B. (Para 7)
       (ii) Official Secrets Act, 1923-Sections 3, 5 and 9-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120B-Appeal against acquittal-Four persons, including respondent were prosecuted-Trial Judge convicted them-High Court affirming conviction imposed on accused 1 and 2 acquitted accused 3 and 4-Accused 3 reported dead-Appeal filed by accused 4 only-Verdict of acquittal recorded by High Court in favour of A4, by way of reversal, suffers patent error of law and perversity of approach-Acquittal of A4 set aside-Judgment of trial Judge convicting A4 restored-Sentence modified to the period already undergone.
       Held : 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 allowing Crl. Appeal No. 248 of 2003 and restore the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, convicting him for offences under Section 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120-B, IPC. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, though having regard to the nature and character of the offences, stringent punishment is required, we consider it unnecessary to send the respondent A-4 once again to suffer imprisonment having been set at large already and taking into account the period already spent by him under custody. Though, on behalf of the respondent it is claimed that he was under custody for one year, 6 months and 24 days, keeping in view the sentence of two years R.I. imposed by the learned Trial Judge and the fact that even as per the memo filed by the appellant-State the period spent already under custody was one year, six months and 20 days, we modify the sentence of two years each already imposed by the Trial Court under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120-B, IPC, to the sentence already undergone by him. The fine imposed remains unaltered. (Paras 13 & 14)
       (iii) Official Secrets Act, 1923-Section 3(1)(c)- Secret document-Definition and scope-Conscious possession of secret documents-No plausible explanation given for its possession-It has to be presumed as required by Section 3(2) that the same was obtained or collected by accused for a purpose prejudicial to safety or interests of the State-Each one of several acts enumerated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, by themselves will constitute, individually, an offending act to attract the said provision-It is not necessary that only one or more of them and particularly publishing or communication of the same need be conjointly proved for convicting one charged with offence of obtaining or collecting records or secret official code etc. (Para 8)
       (iv) Official Secrets Act, 1923-Section 3(1)(c)-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120B-Criminal conspiracy of collecting vital data relating to militancy affairs and defence matters pertaining to Government of India and communicating and passing on of such documents/information to foreign US intelligence-Recovery of Defence Telephone Directory, a classified document restricted for use, from premises being used by A4-Other documents recovered were invitation and visiting cards which were found to be indicative of his contact and communion with foreign agents in India-Acquittal of A4 by High Court held unsustainable-A4 convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(c) Official Secrets Act and under section 120-B, IPC.
       Held : There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that this Directory was issued to PW-14 in the year 1981 and A-3 used to now and then visit and use the same with the permission of PW-14, that thereafter it was missing from PW-14 and ultimately found in the wooden Almirah in the House of A-4. That apart, PW-49 seems to have deposed that A-4 himself opened the wooden Almirah with a key and therefrom took out Ext. PW.14/A from inside. This was found to be corroborated by the evidence of PWs-25, 57 and 56 as well. The other documents, which were also recovered from the wooden Almirah such as invitation and Visiting Cards detailed in Ext. PW.25/D, were found to be indicative of his contact and communion with foreign agents in India. Though, the respondent would deny all such, there is no reason to doubt the clinching, truthful and cogent evidence of all such persons and such materials in the context of his links with the other accused were found to sufficiently prove that A-4 was also a party to the common design of A-1 and A-2, who stood not only convicted by the Trial Court but whose conviction was also affirmed by the very learned Judge in the High Court. (Para 12)
       When so much of solid proof was available as to his possession, a restricted document prohibited for the general use of others and the information contained therein is not to be communicated directly or indirectly to the press or to any person not holding any official position in the Government 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. (Para 13)
       (v) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 10 and 30-Confession of co-accused-Conviction based on-Sustainability-Common design of collecting materials relating to Army activities or defence secrets-Confession of co-accused can be relied on to convict an accused. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.- Four persons, including the respondent Jaspal Singh, were proceeded against pursuant to an FIR bearing No. 237/83 registered on 10.11.83 and after concluding the investigation, the following four persons stood charged for facing trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions case No. 33 of 1984:

1. Maj. Genl. (retd.) F.D. Larkins, New Delhi, s/o Late H.D. Larkins

2. A.V.M. (retd.) K.M. Larkins, Lucknow (U.P.), S/o Late H.D. Larkins

3. Lt. Co. (retd.) Jasbir Singh, New Delhi, s/o Shri Ranbir Singh

4. Jaspal Singh Gill @ Jassi Gill, New Delhi, s/o Late Kartar Singh

2. All of them stood charged for offences under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short 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.(b) Sec. 5 (b) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927.(c) Section 120B IPC(d) Section 25 of the Arms Act.(e) Section 61(i)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as extended to Delhi. 10 years R.I.2 years R.I.2 years R.I. withfine of Rs. 1000/- (3 months S.I.in efault)2 years R.I.with months S.I. in 2000/- (6 months S.I. in default) 1 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 3000/- (5 months S.I. in default)

Accused No.2 (a) Sec. 3(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927.(b) Section 120B IPC 10 years R.I. 2 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- (3 months S.I.in default)

Accused No.3 (a) Sec.3(c) of the Official Secrets(b) Sec. 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927.(c) Section 120B IPC(d) Section 6(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927. 10 years R.I. 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- (3 months S.I.in default2 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- 3 months S.I.in default) 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- (3 months S.I.in default)

Accused No.4 (a) Sec. 3(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1927.(b) Section 120B IPC 2 years R.I.2 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- (3 months S.I.in default)

(All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

4. The above accused filed appeals against the same in Crl. Appeal Nos. 185 of 1985, Crl. Appeal No. 214 of 1985, Crl. Appeal No. 202 of 1985 and Crl. Appeal No. 175 of 1985, respectively. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of New Delhi, by his judgment dated 30-4-2001, while affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, dismissed Crl. Appeal Nos. 185 and 214 of 1985 respectively filed by them. So far as accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 are concerned, the learned single Judge, did not choose to agree with the decision of the learned Trial Judge and while allowing their appeal set aside their conviction and sentence imposed therefor and acquitted them. Not satisfied, the Government of National Capital Territory filed SLP Nos. 3928-3929 of 2002 and after leave was granted the appeals were entertained as Crl. Appeal Nos. 247 and 248 of 2003. The respondent in Crl. Appeal N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 740

Cases Referred (5)