LAWS(DLH)-1984-5-3

JASPAL SINGH GILL Vs. STATE

Decided On May 01, 1984
JASPAL SINGH GILL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the bail application of petitioner/assured Jaspal Singh Gill who is being prosecuted for offences Secs. 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 as also under S.126-B of the Indian Penal Code. The only incriminating matter against him is the alleged disclosure statement dated 18.II.1983 of co-accused Lt. Col.(Retd) Jasbir Singh and the consequent recovery of a Defence Telephone Directory from office room of the office-cum-residence of the petitioner located at 82, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi as a result of the house search. The disclosure statement of co-accused Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh detailed in Annexure 'B' reads as follows :

(2.) As many as 23 items were seized during the course of this search but the Investigating Agency found only the first five items suspicious but further investigation revealed that documents No. 2,3 and 4 were genuine documents written by the Military Authorities in the course of normal and legitimate business correspondence whereas item No. 5 was found to be unclassified. Thus, the only document which is somewhat suspicious is document No. 1 which is the aforesaid Defence Telephone Directory of the year 1980.

(3.) The aforesaid disclosure statement of co-accused Lt. Col (Retd.) Jasbir Singh contains confessional statement part of which is in admissible having been made while in police custody and the remaining portion thereof being admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act so far as it pertains to the information which led to the discovery of the Defence Telephone Directory from the premises of petitioner Jaspal Singh Gill. It may be pointed out that premises No. 82, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi had in it two portions one of which was used by the petitioner for his residence and the other for his office wherein he carried on his business under the name and style "EMGEE International" and wherein the petitioner had employed the co-accused Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh as Consultant and in that capacity Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh had full excess to the said office and the Defence Telephone Directory was admittedly recovered from the said office room and it may be dubious whether Lt. Col. (Red.) Jasbir Singh had brought and kept it there with the knowledge or consent of the petitioner.