SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 356

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.K. Verma, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Krishna Murari Pandey - Appellants
Versus
State of U. P. - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 4370 0/1995
Decided on : Mar 27, 1996

Advocates appeared:
Vijay Kumar Rai, Niraj Tripathi

The Official Secrets Act applies to a wide range of official information, including that which could be used for unfair means in an examination.

Headnote:

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - QUASHING OF SANCTION ORDER - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - POWER OF COURT TO QUASH - CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING QUASHING.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, employees of the U.P. Public Service Commission, were arrested for allegedly entrusting two test booklets of a Civil Service Examination to a co-worker for photocopying in contravention of instructions. The C.B.I. investigated the matter and obtained sanction from the Government of Uttar Pradesh to prosecute the petitioners under Sections 5(1) and (9) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (the Act). The petitioners challenged the sanction order and the subsequent criminal proceedings, arguing that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to them and that the sanction had been granted without proper application of mind.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case and that the sanction order was speaking and reasoned. It rejected the petitioners' argument that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to them, finding that they were employees of the U.P. Public Service Commission, which was an integral part of the Government for the purpose of the Act. The Court also rejected the petitioners' argument that the Act was only applicable in cases involving the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, holding that the Act applied to a wide range of official information, including that which could be used for unfair means in an examination.

Issues: 1. Whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case and whether the sanction order was speaking and reasoned. 2. Whether the provisions of the Official Secrets Act were applicable to the petitioners. 3. Whether the Act was only applicable in cases involving the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case and that the sanction order was speaking and reasoned, as it contained a detailed explanation of the reasons for granting sanction. 2. The Court held that the provisions of the Official Secrets Act were applicable to the petitioners, as they were employees of the U.P. Public Service Commission, which was an integral part of the Government for the purpose of the Act. 3. The Court held that the Act was not only applicable in cases involving the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, but also to a wide range of official information, including that which could be used for unfair means in an examination.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sanction order was valid and that the criminal proceedings could proceed. It also directed the trial court to proceed with the proceedings expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Judgment :

B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. THE instant case has already made a chequered history as this is the 4th round of litigation before this Court, though the trial has not yet commenced. Petitioners were arrested on 7.6.1992 on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged under Section 409, I.P.C. read with Section 5 (1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act). Petitioner No. 1 who had been posted as Secretary of the U.P. Public Service Commission, was working as a co-ordinating Supervisor at the relevant time and the petitioner No. 2 was functioning as relieving invigilator in the Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination, 1992. Allegation against the petitioners are that in contravention of the instructions issued by the Union Public Service Commission, petitioner No. 1 entrusted two test booklets of that examination to petitioner No. 2 for getting it photo-copied from the market. Petitioner No. 2 complied with the direction and the same was returned at 11.30 a.m. when the same could not have been taken outside the examination hall and the said booklets ought to have been sealed by 10.30 a.m.

2. THE C.B.I, investigated the matter and obtained sanction from the Government of Uttar Pradesh as required under Section 13 of the Act, vide impugned order dated 17.2.1993 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). On the basis of the said sanction, complaint case No. 3 of 1993 was filed before the C.B.I, court, Lucknow (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). On the basis of the said complaint, summons were issued to the petitioners by the learned Magistrate on 18.2.1993, vide Annexure SA-1. Petitioners moved an application before the learned Magistrate to discharge summons as no case under Section 5/9 of the Act could be made out against them, but the learned Magistrate rejected the same, vide order dated 15.4.1994. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 3032 of 1994 under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the complaint (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), but this Court rejected the said application, vide its order dated 11.5.1994 as it was not found maintainable (Annexure SA-3 to the writ petition). Petitioners filed Criminal Revisions Nos. 717 and 718 of 1994 for quashing of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15.4.94, but this Court dismissed the said revisions as being against interlocutory order, not maintainable, vide order dated 27.9.1994 (Annexure SA-4 to the writ petition). However, observing that the Issue of discharge can be raised before the trial court in accordance with the provisions of Section 228, Cr. P.C. at the appropriate stage and the trial court can examine the same meticulously at that stage as in was neither possible nor necessary for the learned Magistrate to arrive at a decision whether the accused persons had committed the offence or not at the time Of taking cognizance.

The instant petition has been filed by petitioners for quashing the order dated 17.2.1993 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) mainly on three grounds :

1. the sanction had been granted by the appropriate Government without any application of mind ; 2 petitioners do not hold the office under the Government and, thus provisions of the Act are not attracted ; and 3. the provisions of the Act being not applicable in the instant case, no case can be made out against the petitioners.

3. SO far as the 1st issue is concerned, each and every relevant fact of the case has been mentioned in the impugned order itself. It appears from the record that after considering all the relevant material on record, the appropriate Government reached the conclusion that the petitioners failed to comply with the directions issued by the lawful authority and, thus, they were liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1) and (9) of the Act. Sanction under Section 13 of the Act was granted as under :

"Whereas the State Government of Uttar Pradesh after carefully examining the matter before it in regard to the said alleg




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top