The judgment establishes the seriousness of espionage and forgery offenses, emphasizing the potential threat to national security and the statutory presumption against the accused in obtaining secret documents.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Both these appeals being interconnected are taken up together for disposal.

2. Appellant – Sajjad Haider @ Mohd.Parvez in Crl.A.797/2013 is aggrieved by a judgment dated 29.01.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.02/2011 arising out of FIR No.43/10 PS Special Cell by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 14 of Foreigners Act. By an order dated 31.01.2013, he was awarded various prison terms with fine. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

3. The State has also filed Crl.A.1556/2013 to challenge the said judgment whereby Sajjad Haider @ Mohd.Parvez (herein referred to as ‘the appellant’) was acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 9 Officials Secrets Act and 120B IPC and Jainuddin Ansari was acquitted of all the charges.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 14.09.2010 at about 03.00 p.m. an information was received from Central Intelligence Agency (‘CIA’ in short) that a Pakistani spy residing in the area of Samalkha, Delhi, on fake / forged documents of Indian nationality in the name of Mohd.Parvez was involved in supplying confidential documents / information related to Indian Armed Forces to his Pakistani mentors and would come to NSG Camp, red light, Samalkha at about 06.00 p.m. and was in possession of certain secret / confidential documents related to the Indian Armed Forces. The said information was discussed with senior officers and on their direction a raiding party was constituted under the supervision of Insp.Sanjay Dutt.

5. Further case of the prosecution is that at about 06.00 p.m. at the spot the appellant was seen coming on foot towards the red light from Kapashera side. On identification of the secret informer, the appellant was apprehended. He was carrying a small black colour handbag in his right hand. Initially he disclosed his name as Mohd.Parvez s/o Mohd.Haneef but on further questioning, he disclosed his real identity as Sajjad Haider @ Mohd.Parvez s/o Late Mohd. Ali Haider r/o House No.6, Gali No.1, Mohalla Pindi Rajputtan, Naqshbandi Chowk, PS Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, Pakistan. He further informed that at present, he was residing at house No.595, Smalkha, Delhi.

6. On checking the contents of the bag, one white paper envelope containing 18 pages of photocopies of documents was recovered. These documents were related to Indian Armed Forces containing confidential information about ‘Review of modernization of T-72, MI Tanks’, ‘Likely future equipment profile 2017 and beyond’ etc. The envelope was addressed to Suleman Mohammad, Post Box No.3279, Dubai, UAE from Mohd. Parvez, House No.43/2, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. Besides this, one Indian driving licence No. C-1690/08 in the name of Parvez issued from Dehradoon (Uttrakhand); one Indian PAN Card bearing No.BDTPP7539Q in the name of Mohd.Parvez; two account opening forms of State Bank of India which were partly filled up; photocopy of Rent Agreement dated 10.08.2010 between Naveen Bhardwaj and Mohd.Parvez; photocopy of ration card, saving bank passbook of Naveen and photocopy of PAN Card were also recovered from the said bag. All these documents were seized by a seizure memo. The Investigating Officer prepared rukka and lodged First Information Report through HC Uday Veer. Further investigation was taken over by Insp.Rahul Kumar Singh. The accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Pursuant to that, raid was conducted at House No.595, Samalkha village, New Delhi, from where some documents were recovered and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-7/B). One vehicle make Tavera bearing registration No. UP 16 R-9409 along with certain documents was also recovered. Supplementary disclosure statement (Ex.PW-10/D) was recorded. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Certain recoveries were effected during investigation. Upon completion of investigatio