( 1 ) THE appellants were convicted under S. 3 (1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi and were sentenced to undergo to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

( 2 ) THE charge against the appellants is that they were working as peons in the Directorate of Naval Engineering Naval Headquarters, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi and in that capacity they had access to the secret and classified documents and files. The allegation against them is that they were passing on classified information and documents till Jan. 1980 to one Mohd. Haroon under the assumed name of Raj Kumar and to one Mohd. Ashraff under the assumed name of Balbir and both these persons belonged to the Pakistan Intelligence and were working in the Pakistan Embassy as foreign agents. It is also alleged that on several occasions the appellants used to sneak out the files and classified documents from the Naval Headquarters and were handing over the same at different contact points to these foreign agents who would take a photo copy of the same, return these and then the appellants used to secretly bring the files back to the Naval Headquarters and put them at their proper places. This the appellants allegedly continued to do for a period of years and they were regularly accepting payments for the same.

( 3 ) THUS the charge against the appellants is that they have been passing on secret information and classified documents to foreign agents and that these documents and information was useful to the enemy agents and related to matters the disclosure of which was likely to adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and the friendly relations with the foreign States. The documents, according to the prosecution related to the naval establishment of the Government of India.

( 4 ) AT trial the stand of the appellants was that of denial. That they were serving in the Naval Headquarter as peons at the relevant time is not denied. It is, however, denied that they had any access to the files. The fact of having made any disclosure before the Investigating Officer has also been denied.

( 5 ) I have carefully considered the facts, and circumstances and the evidence recorded in the case as also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of three sets of witnesses. PW-4 and PW-6, namely; Suraj Narain and Bhagwati Pershad were supposed to tender evidence that the appellants had approached them along with one Mohd. Ashra Malid alias Balbir with a view to lure them into supplying the classified information to the foreign agents. At trial, however, both these witnesses have been declared hostile and they have stated nothing incriminating against the appellants.

( 6 ) THE next set of witnesses have tendered evidence to the effect that in their presence the appellants had pointed out several places in Delhi where they had on many occasions met the foreign agents and passed on information and classified documents and files. This part of the prosecution story is testified by PWs. 8, Mahabir Singh, PW-9, Girdhari Lal, SI PW-13 Satinder Singh and PW-20 Inspector Raj Bir Singh.

( 7 ) THE third set of witnesses have tendered evidence to the effect that in pursuance of disclosure statements the appellants had pointed out the documents and files in the Naval Headquarters, which they had passed on to the foreign agents. These are PW-14 Commander S. P. Dutt, PW-18 Commander B. S. K. Swamy and also Commander S. Wilson and PW-19 Commander K. V. Sonalker. Disclosure statements Ex. PW-16/c and PW- 16/d have been proved in this case by PW-16 Inspector Raghunath Singh, PW-5 Shri S. L. Kaura has testified to the effect that the appellants had access to these documents.

( 8 ) ON examination of the judgment of the learned trial Judge I find that the learned Judge by a very strange and curious reasoning found the entire evidence admissible and came to the conclusion t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document