The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of information contained in marked 'secret' documents must be considered to determine if an offence is made out under The Official Secrets Act, 1923. The court also emphasized the importance of newspaper reports in establishing the public domain nature of the documents and the non-application of mind by the trial court in classifying the documents as 'secret'.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in the above captioned petitions is to trial court’s order of 31st March, 2012 vide which first three petitioners have been put on trial on the charge under Section 120(B) of IPC read with Section 5(2) punishable under Section 5(4) of The Official Secrets Act, 1923. The fourth petitioner M/s Reliance Industries Limited has been also charged with the offence under Section 5(2) punishable under Section 5(4) read with Section 15 of The Official Secrets Act, 1923. In the alternative, first three petitioners have been also charged for the offence under Section 5(2) punishable under Section 5(4) read with Section 15 of The Official Secrets Act, 1923.

The first petitioner-Shankar Adawal was the General Manger (Corporate Affairs) of Reliance Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and he has been arrayed as accused No. 3 in the charge-sheet. Petitioner-V. Balasubramanian, was the Group President of M/s Reliance Industries Public Limited and he has been arrayed as accused No. 1, whereas the above said M/s Reliance Industries Limited has been arrayed as accused No. 4. Petitioner-A.N. Sethuraman was the Vice-President of M/s Reliance Industries Limited and he has been arrayed as accused No. 2 in the charge-sheet filed.

The crux of the prosecution case as noticed in the impugned order is as under:-

“Case of prosecution is that on 28.10.1998, search of the office premises of Sh. V. Balasubramanian, Group President, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) at 5th Floor, Meridien Commercial Tower, Janpath, New Delhi was conducted by Inspector Gir Raj Singh, Addl. SHO, PS Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi in connection with investigation of case FIR No. 799/98, PS Hauz Khas, New Delhi. In the course of search, photocopies of the four ‘Secret’ documents of Government of India (comprising of 37 pages) were recovered from office-table drawer of Sh. V. Balasubramanian. The table was lying locked. It had to be broken open in presence of witnesses. As a result, photocopies of four documents comprising of 37 pages were recovered from the drawer of the table. Prosecution alleges that these documents were ‘secret documents’.

The particulars of the documents recovered have been already spelt out in the impugned order. The document D-7 is on the subject “Core Group on Economic Matters-Challenge of Economic Sanctions against India” (5th Meeting). The document D-8 is part of document D-7. On 14th September, 1998, this document has been labeled separately to highlight being No. 17 in the aforesaid document D-7. The next document is D-9 is on the subject-“Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Core Group of Secretaries on Disinvestment” relating to meeting convened by Cabinet Secretary on 21st September, 2008.

The reference to document D-10, relied upon by the prosecution has not been adverted to, for the reason that trial court in the impugned order has concluded in respect of this document as under:-

“In view of the above, as rightly submitted by learned defence counsel, it cannot be said that documents D-10 was a secret document or a document containing information, communication of which would have been in contravention of the provisions of Official Secrets Act”.

Upon considering the charge-sheet and the material on record, trial court vide impugned order has concluded as under:-

“From the material available on record, prima facie it can be said that accused No. 4 Reliance Industries Ltd. had vested interest in having the information contained in the three documents (D-7, D-8 & D-9) so as to know as to what was going on at the level of the government on the subjects to which they pertain, and to take appropriate steps for the benefits of the company which is an association of persons and having a juristic personality in the eye of law.

Herein, on the material available on record, prima facie case for an offence under Section 5(2) punishable under Section 5(4) read with Section 15 of The Official Secret Act is made out against Company-accused No. 4.

Prima facie there is mate