RAJAN BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 11th August, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Delhi whereby the application of the petitioner for separate trial was dismissed.

(2.) On 15th February, 1982, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi, filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, inter alia, on the allegation that the co-accused of the petitioner, S. D. Pachbhave, a Dark Room Assistant in the Navel Headquarters at Delhi, had his first contact with one Mr. Khanna (an assumed name of an employee of Pakistan Embassy) near Boat Club Bus Stand, New Delhi. The said S. D. Pachbhave had come out of Princess Mess and he developed relationship with the said employee of the Pakistan Embassy and Pachbhave passed on certain secret documents to Mr. Khanna, in other words to Gulzaman and his associates. According to the prosecution the said documents were prejudicial to the safety and security of the State. In pursuance of the said conspiracy between Pachbhave and the employees of Pakistan Embassy it was agreed by Pachbhave that he would meet Gulzaman, near the overbridge at Daryaganj and would pass on some documents of sensitive nature. The special branch of Delhi Police had prior secret information regarding the meeting of Gulzaman near the over-bridge at Daryaganj and accordingly, a raid was organised. Pachbhave was caught red handed while passing those secret documents to Gulzaman on the evening of 21-11-1982. Later on, some documents were also recovered from the house of Pachbhave, which were also of secret and sensitive nature.

(3.) Further case of the prosecution is that during the course of interrogation, Pachbhave disclosed that he had some contacts with the petitioner, Rajan Bakshi, Advocate practising at New Delhi Courts, in connection with the court case. Pachbhave started visiting the petitioner in connection with the affairs of the said court cases and during the course of said meetings he also stood surety in respect of a foreign national who was a client of the petitioner. From the personal search of Pachbhave a slip and a visiting card of the petitioner was recovered which led the police to the house of the petitioner. According to Pachbhave, he had on the previous evening when he had gone to his Advocate, the petitioner, had forgotten one paper on the table of the said Advocate and the said document was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Later Pachbhave made a confessional statement. In the said statement he denied of having passed on any secret documents to the petitioner. According to the prosecution case, during investigation, Pachbhave had disclosed that he had been passing on official classified documents to the petitioner and some more documents were lying at his house in a bag which contained several classified documents and thereafter he led the Police party to the house of the petitioner and on search of the house, one copy of classified document was recovered. It also transpired in the investigation that the accused Pachbhave appeared as surety in cases for the accused who had been engaging the petitioner and the petitioner had been supplying the copies of the secret and classified documents to the officials of the United States Embassy and Pachbhave knew about it and he had been supplying copies of the secret documents sometimes at the house of the petitioner and sometimes the later used to go to the house of Pachbhave to collect the documents. According to the prosecution case, a detailed inquiry and investigation was made though it is not relevant to refer to the same at this stage.