Back
1986 Supreme(Ker) 270
Judges : K.SREEDHARAN
Sundaresan Thampi - Appellant
Versus
V.Ramachandran And Others - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C. No. 690 of 1986
Decided On : 08/28/1986
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: K. V. Sadananda Prabhu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
The court's decision was based on the principle that the disclosure of documents should not cause greater injury to public interest than their non-disclosure, especially in the context of the nature of the proceeding and the likely effect of the documents on the determination of the issues.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE HUNTING - CRIMINAL ENQUIRY - S. 123 of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the petitioner's attempt to substantiate allegations based on newspaper clippings and the respondents' refusal to produce documents, claiming privilege under S. 123 of the Evidence Act. The court held that the disclosure of the documents would cause greater injury to public interest than on its non-disclosure, justifying the refusal to examine the respondents and not directing them to produce the documents summoned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to examine the respondents and obtain certain documents to substantiate allegations based on newspaper clippings. The respondents refused to produce the documents, claiming privilege under S. 123 of the Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disclosure of the documents would cause greater injury to public interest than on its non-disclosure, justifying the refusal to examine the respondents and not directing them to produce the documents summoned.
Issues: The main issue was whether the documents summoned should be disclosed or not, considering the privilege claimed under S. 123 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the proceeding pending before the court and the importance of the document in determining the issue arising in it are vital. It also emphasized that the character of the proceeding, the issues arising in it, and the likely effect of the documents on the determination of the issues must form vital considerations.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found that the disclosure of the documents would cause greater injury to public interest than on its non-disclosure, justifying the refusal to examine the respondents and not directing them to produce the documents summoned.
The petitioner has embarked upon an evidence hunting spree to substantiate his allegations in the complaint filed before Court. The said complaint is based on certain news items which appeared in newspapers. Apart from the clippings from those newspapers, the petitioner is not possessed of any acceptable legal evidence to substantiate the averments made by him in the complaint. Therefore he wanted to examine the respondents herein and to direct them to produce certain documents. The respondents, on getting summons filed affidavits and petition before Court. In the affidavit the third respondent contended that none of the documents referred to in the summons is in his custody and that he is not in a position to produce the same. The first respondent averred that out of the two documents directed to be produced by him, the second did not reach him and that the first document has been entrusted with the second respondent in connection with the enquiry which is being conducted by him. The second respondent has stated that the documents summoned to be produced are unpublished official records, disclosure of which will be prejudicial to the interest of the State and that they are to be protected from disclosure under section 123 of the Evidence Act. Respondent also filed a petition under section 203 of the Cr.P.C. praying for the dismissal of the complaint. For a proper understanding of the stand taken by the respondents it will be advantageous to read paras 3 to 5 of that petition.
"3. The State Government have taken serious notice of the various allegations - in newspapers and otherwise - regarding the visit of the two Kuwaiti Nationals and have ordered a comprehensive enquiry by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government. The State Government will be taking appropriate action against any one found guilty of any illegal or irregular act. The Hon'ble High Court has taken notice of this undertaking of the State Government while disposing of the O.P. No. 2128/86 on 7-4-86. The second petitioner is entrusted with the inquiry into the allegations made with respect to the foreigners who visited Kerala without necessary travel documents and in that connection he has come into possession of unpublished official records, the disclosure of which will certainly prejudice the affairs of the State and the object of the enquiry. If the petitioners are examined, the petitioners would be certainly compelled to disclose what they have gained during the course of the enquiry being made into the self-same matter and this is disclosed in a Court of law, it would be a public document which could legitimately be published.
4. The publication of such information relating to matters of State will certainly prejudice not only the enquiry but also the result of the enquiry. In this context, the petitioners submit that the examination of the petitioners should be dispensed with considering the disastrous consequences resulting from such examination.
5. The petitioners further submit that a reading of the complaint will certainly disclose that it is an unsustainable complaint in a Court of law without necessary sanction under S. 197 of the Cr.P.C. which is mandatory. The sanction is to be accorded by the Government and while considering that matter the consequences of according sanction in a matter like this will certainly be taken into consideration by the Government. Hence it is submitted that on a prima facie unsustainable complaint a S. 202, Cr.P.C. enquiry is an abuse of the process of the Court."
2. When this petition came up for admission, without ordering notice to the respondents, I requested the learned Director of Public Prosecutions to take notice of the petition and to argue the same on merits. The learned Director of Public Prosecutions got really with the case. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Director of Public Prosecution, in extenso.
3. Before dealing with the various aspects pressed before me, I t
