STATE OF KERALA Vs. K BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition comes up for hearing before us on a reference made by our learned brother Joseph, J. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the premature publication of the State Budget would amount to an offence under the Official Secrets Act.

(2.) The 1st accused in this case is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily by name The Kaumudi. The second accused is its city correspondent. The compositor of the Government Press, Trivandrum, is the 3rd accused, but he had been discharged. The prosecution case is that certain parts of the Budget for the year 1957 - 58 Appendix V and VI, Memorandum explaining alterations in the Preliminary Budget estimate and also information regarding introductory preface to the 2nd Five Year Plan, detailed estimates and Budget figures relating to the Forest, Transport, Commerce, Civil Government Works, General Administration, Judiciary, Police and Jails, Education, etc., were published in the issue of the Kaumudi dated 5-6-1957 before the Budget was presented before the Legislature on 7-6-1957. The Budget being a secret document of the Government, the reception and publication of the Budget matter in the issue of the paper before it was actually presented in the Legislative Assembly falls within the mischief of S.5(2) and 5 (1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act - Act XIX of 1923 (hereinafter called the Act).

(3.) Accused 1 and 2 exercised the option allowed under S.13, Clause.2 of the Act and entered the claim to be tried by the Court of Session. They were therefore committed to the Sessions to stand their trial. The learned Sessions Judge of Trivandrum found after trial that Appendixes V and VI of the Memorandum and introduction to the plan Budget are secret documents coming within the meaning of the Act and found that the second accused obtained possession of the same and gave it to the 1st accused, who in turn prepared the manuscript in his own hand writing and printed and published the same in the daily paper Kaumudi, Ext. P5. He therefore found both the accused guilty under S.5 Clause.2 and S.5 (1) sub clause (b) of the Act and sentenced the 1st accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month and the 2nd accused to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 21 days Aggrieved with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the offence committed was only technical and the sentence being, in their opinion, grossly inadequate, the State has come up in revision.