SALEEM UD DIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two criminal appeals and one criminal revision. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1969 is Saleem-ud-din while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1970 is the State of Delhi which is also a petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1970.

(2.) The appellant Saleem-ud-din was being tried along with one Riaz Ahmed, a Pakistan national. Two other persons, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were also being tried along with them. The charge against all of them was one of conspiracy to commit illegal acts, namely, to commit offences under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923. By a judgment dated October 31, 1969 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Riaz Ahmed, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were acquitted of the charge framed against them while Saleem-ud-din was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. 1923 and also to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 3 In a judgment which but for the errors to which we shall presently refer, is extremely well written, the learned trial Judge has held that Riaz Ahmed being a foreign national could not be tried in this country for the offence of conspiracy which according to him was committed outside India. He has also held that there was no evidence of Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis having allegedly participated in the conspiracy. As regards Saleem-ud-din he has held that there 'was a criminal conspiracy at Lahore during the months of April-May 1968 between Saleem-ud-din and some Pakistani nationals belonging to the Pakistan Intelligence, namely, M. A. Bajwa and Malik Salim etc., to commit the offence of spying in India and make sketches and collect other information relating to defence installations in this country.

(3.) Riaz Ahmed no doubt joined that criminal conspiracy at Lahore and subsequently came to India to join Saleem-ud-din to assist him in his espionage activities. He was, however, arrested before he could contact Saleem-ud-din at Bareilly. Saleem-ud-din did commit acts of espionage at Bareilly by making a rough sketch and preparing an intelligence report relating to Izzat Nagar Air-port at Bareilly. He also sent some reports to the Pakistan Intelligence earlier and was therefore guilty of conspiracy and espionage. [After discussing the facts, the judgment proceeded.]