Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1498
High Court of Delhi
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
Aniruddha Bahal & Others
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
CRL. REV. P. Nos. 683 & 707 of 2012 34 of 2013
Decided on : 26-05-2014
For the Petitioners:Pramod Kumar Dubey with Shiv Pande, Shiv Chopra, Nishank Mattoo, Hemant Shah, Shri Singh with Dheeraj Kumar, Aakanksha Singh, Dr. M.P. Raju with J.P. Thomas, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.K. Sharma, St. Counsel with Rakesh Sharma, Somi Mehra, Renu Malik, Pulkit Mishra, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements for recording confessional statements and highlights the limitations on taking cognizance of offences under the Official Secrets Act without a complaint made by the appropriate Government or an authorized officer.
Headnote:
Official Secrets Act - Alleged leakage of classified documents - Sections 3 and 5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged leakage of classified documents related to the activities of Dutch NGOs in India, which were marked 'secret' and published on a news portal. The accused were charged under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, along with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused persons. It also noted that the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained under questionable circumstances and could not be relied upon. As a result, the court set aside the order on charges and discharged the petitioners/accused persons.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to frame charges against the accused persons and the admissibility of the confessional statement obtained under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Official Secrets Act is a special Act and a complete code in itself, and no court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act without a complaint made by the appropriate Government or an authorized officer. It also emphasized the need for strict adherence to the procedural requirements for recording confessional statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order on charges and discharged the petitioners/accused persons, finding that there was no sufficient material to justify framing charges against them.
Veena Birbal, J.
1. The present three revision petitions are filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16th October, 2012 passed by the ld.Additional Sessions Judge-FTC(Central) Delhi.
2. These revision petitions arise out of FIR i.e., Crime No.RC No.1(S)/2001/SIC.IV New Delhi dated 30.3.2001 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short referred to as C.B.I.) under Section 3 and 5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Section 120-B of IPC on the complaint of Mr. S.P.Shokhanda, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi dated 21.3.2001 vide OM No.-1202/184/2000-VC dated 29.3.2000. It was alleged in the OM that a meeting was held on 29.9.1999 under the Chairmanship of Shri G.K.Pillai, Joint Secretary, to discuss the activities of Dutch NGOs in India appeared on the website of Tehelka.com, a news portal, on 9.10.2000. It was alleged that the minutes were classified in nature and were marked “secret” and leakage of these classified documents constitutes an offence under the Act. It was further alleged that the portal had deleted the website pages subsequently. It was alleged that there was reason to believe that Niraj Kumar/petitioner, Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, NE Division who was the custodian of the file at the relevant time, leaked the information along with some other sensitive information in collusion with another officer of the MHA.
3. In pursuance to the FIR, CBI through its Dy.Supdt. of Police, Sh.N.S. Kharayat, filed a complaint dated 4.6.2003 u/s 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the offences u/s 3(1)(c), 5(1)(2)(4) of the Act read with section 120-B IPC before the learned C.M.M., Delhi.
4. In the complaint, the reference is made to aforesaid FIR registered with the CBI. It is alleged that during the investigation it came to light that accused Niraj Kumar while working as Section Officer in NE-IV Section of MHA submitted a note dated 5.9.1999 titled “Dutch interest in India’s fringe politics’ to Sh. G.K. Pillai, the then Joint Secretary. The file bearing No.11011/40/99 NE-IV was opened and marked “secret” as it was observed that the activities of Dutch NGOs could bring long term implications. It is alleged that a meeting was held on 29.9.1999 on the subject under the Chairmanship of Sh. G.K. Pillai, Joint Secretary, MHA in which officers from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, RAW and Intelligence Bureau had attended. The minutes of meeting were drawn and after it was approved by the Joint Secretary, the copy of same was forwarded to the concerned Officers vide letter dated 7/8.10.2000 marked “Secret”.
5. It was alleged that the investigation had revealed that on 9.10.2000 the minutes of meeting dated 29.9.1999 almost verbatim appeared on the portal of tehelka.com besides a report containing secret matters of the said file No. 11011/40/99/NE-IV under the title “Dutch Support Revealed For Rebels In Bihar and North East” was also displayed. On 10.10.2000, another report under the title “unravelled : The Dutch role in aiding and abetting Indian Insurgents” containing information from the said Secret file of the Ministry of Home Affairs was also displayed by tehelka.com. It is alleged that after the minutes were displayed, Joint Secretary (EW), Ministry of External Affairs vide DO letter dated 24.10.2000 addressed to Sh. G.K. Pillai, JS (NE) MHA, New Delhi conveyed that Dutch ambassador Mr. Peter Coch had brought to the MEA”s attention about the information available on the website of tehelka.com. Consequently, Shri G.K.Pillai, Joint Secretary (NE) requested for an enquiry by Intelligence Bureau. In the report the IB pointed out that Shri Niraj Kumar could be involved in leakage of the secret information.
6. As per allegations in complaint, accused Niraj Kumar considered accused Thomas Mathew, the then Director, MHA, as his god father. Accused Thomas Mathe
