JUDGMENT

V.K. Gupta, C.J. - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Special Act Case No. 158-1/2001, 126-II/2002. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment the learned CJM, Mandi has convicted the petitioner-accused of committing the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 (1923 Act, for short). Even while convicting the petitioner accused of the aforesaid offences under the 1923 Act, the learned CJM has acquitted the petitioner accused of the offence under Section l20-B, IPC. Vide a separate order dated 31st May, 2003 the learned Court below has passed a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment against the petitioner.

2. The case has a very chequered history, indeed unfortunately chequered, and to the total prejudice of the petitioner. The chequered history is so unfortunate that this Court has no doubt in its mind that the petitioner accused has been dealt with very unfairly, practically at all levels and by

every one else.

3. To recount, the complaint against the petitioner accused was presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Court No. II), Mandi with respect to his allegedly committing the offences under the 1923 Act. This Court made an endorsement upon this complaint that since the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sundernagar, it be sent to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. When the complaint case was presented before the learned ACJM, Sundernagar and the accused also appeared in that Court, his statement was recorded by the learned ACJM in terms of Section 13(2) of the 1923 Act whereby he opted to be tried by the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Mandi. Based upon this statement of the petitioner accused, the learned ACJM, Sundernagar committed the complaint to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. The learned Sessions Judge, Mandi assigned this case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. Vide an order passed on

29th August, 2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi sent the complaint to the Court of CJM, Mandi to proceed in accordance with law, after once again (very-very strangely) obtaining the option of the petitioner in terms of Section 13(2) of the 1923 Act. On receipt of the aforesaid order from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned CJM again made a reference to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner had already given the option, but the said reference was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. I have perused the various orders passed by the various Courts below in this case. First and foremost is the order dated 13th June, 2001 passed by the learned ACJM, Sundernagar in which he has clearly observed that his Court is not a competent Court to try the case in terms of Section 13(1) of the 1923 Act because it has not been specially empowered in this behalf by the appropriate Government. I have also perused the order dated 29th August, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi also. It makes a very strange reading as it refers to the subject matter of option exercised by the petitioner accused. On an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the 1923 Act the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, rejecting the reference sends the case to the learned CJM, Mandi to proceed in accordance with law after obtaining the option of the petitioner in terms of Section 13(2) once again vide order dated 26th September, 2001 the learned CJM, Mandi asked the petitioner to exercise his option once again under Section 13(2) of the 1923 Act. The petitioner made a statement in that Court on that date that he did not want to exercise the option and that he has no objection to the case being tried in the Court of CJM