The judgment establishes that premature publication of Budget papers constitutes an offence under the Official Secrets Act, based on the interpretation of 'official secrets' and confidential documents.

1. This revision petition comes up for hearing before us on a reference made by our learned brother Joseph, J. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the premature publication of the State Budget would amount to an offence under the Official Secrets Act.

2. The 1st accused in this case is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily by name 'The Kaumudi'. The second accused is its city correspondent. The compositor of the Government Press, Trivandrum, is the 3rd accused, but he had been discharged. The prosecution case is that certain parts of the Budget for the year 1957 - 58 Appendix V and VI, Memorandum explaining alterations in the Preliminary Budget estimate and also information regarding introductory preface to the 2nd Five Year Plan, detailed estimates and Budget figures relating to the Forest, Transport, Commerce, Civil Government Works, General Administration, Judiciary, Police and Jails, Education, etc., were published in the issue of the Kaumudi dated 5-6-1957 before the Budget was presented before the Legislature on 7-6-1957. The Budget being a secret document of the Government, the reception and publication of the Budget matter in the issue of the paper before it was actually presented in the Legislative Assembly falls within the mischief of S.5(2) and 5 (1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act - Act XIX of 1923 (hereinafter called the Act).

3. Accused 1 and 2 exercised the option allowed under S.13, Clause.2 of the Act and entered the claim to be tried by the Court of Session. They were therefore committed to the Sessions to stand their trial. The learned . Sessions Judge of Trivandrum found after trial that Appendixes V and VI of the Memorandum and introduction to the plan Budget are 'secret documents' coming within the meaning of the Act and found that the second accused obtained possession of the same and gave it to the 1st accused, who in turn prepared the manuscript in his own hand-writing and printed and published the same in the daily paper Kaumudi, Ext. P5. He therefore found both the accused guilty under S.5 Clause.2 and S.5 (1) sub-clause (b) of the Act and sentenced the 1st accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month and the 2nd accused to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 21 days Aggrieved with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the offence committed was only technical and the sentence being, in their opinion, grossly inadequate, the State has come up in revision.

4. Under S.439 (2), an order of enhancement of sentence cannot be passed unless the accused had an opportunity of being heard in his defence and under S.439 (6) the accused is entitled when proceedings are taken under S.439 (2) to allow cause against his conviction. He has a right to be heard both on the question of the propriety of the conviction and also on the question whether the sentence awarded in the case is proper or should be enhanced. The learned counsel for the accused therefore argued the case on the merits also.

5. That the 1st accused is the editor of the Kaumudi and the 2nd accused is their city correspondent is amply proved by the evidence in the case and is not disputed. It is also equally clear from the evidence that the material figures and information contained in Appendix V and VI of the Memorandum and the figures contained in the Introductory to the Plan Budget were published in the Kaumudi on 5-6-1957 and that both the accused were responsible for the publication. The main point that is argued in this case was whether Appendix V and VI of the Memorandum and Introductory to the Plan Budget are official secrets within the meaning of the Act.

6. The main question that was argued is that Appendix V and VI of the Memorandum and Introductory to the Plan Budget are not 'official secrets' and do not come within the mischief of the Act. To ascertain the meaning of the expression 'Official Secrets,' we may us