KANWAR LAL GUPTA Vs. AMAR NATH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had summoned Police Reporters of the C.I.D. who had been deputed to take notes of the speeches delivered during the public meetings of the Congress in support of the Congress candidate in the Delhi Sadar Parliarnsntary constituency between the period 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. These witnesses were required to bring with them,-

(2.) In pursuance, of the summons, Mahinderpal Singh (Public Witness .20) an Inspector in the C.I.D. (Special Brachch) appeared on January 3, 1972. He deposed that the persons from the C.I.D. who were sent to cover meetings used to take the purport of the speeches either shorthand if shorthand writers were available or from memory and that these reports used to be submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. He was then asked to state from the record the public election meetings held in the Sadar Parliamentary constituency which were covered by the C.I.D. staff and on that he produced an affidavit of L.S. Bisht, Inspector General of Police, Delhi, staling that many officers had been deputed to cover the meetings held between 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. He further stated that he had examined the contents of the documents which were required to be produced and had come to the conclusion that they "are unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State and its disclosure will cause injury to public interest and it contains privileged communications made in official confidence and public interest will suffer by its disclosure." He, therefore, withheld permission under section 123 of the Evidence Act to produce the said documents which "are unpubished official records" or to give evidence derived therefrom. This affidavit was merely signed by L.S. Bisht and was not even attested.

(3.) On the production of this affidavit I was of the view, as stated by me in the order of that date that the affidavit merely repeated the language of section 123 of the Evidence Act without telling the Court as to how the unpublished official records relate to any affair of State. I also stated that according to the testimony of Public Witness . 20, the job of the officers detailed by him was to note down what was said in these public speeches by various speakers and I could not appreciate hew notes and speeches made at these public meetings relating to an election could be said to relate to any affair of State. I also referred to the case reported in A.I.R. 1969 Madras 378 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner. However, I gave an opportunity to the Inspector General of Police to file a further affidavit disclosing how the unpublished official records relate to any affair of State.