SUNDARESAN Vs. V RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has embarked upon an evidence hunting spree to substantiate his allegations in the complaint filed before court. The said complaint is based on certain news items which appeared in newspapers. Apart from the clippings from those newspapers, the petitioner is not possessed of any acceptable legal evidence to substantiate the averments made by him in the complaint. Therefore he wanted to examine the respondents herein and to direct them to produce certain documents. The respondents, on getting summons filed affidavits and petition before court. In the affidavit the third respondent contended that none of the documents referred to in the summons is in his custody and that he is not in a position to produce the same. The first respondent averred that out of the two documents directed to be produced by him, the second did not reach him and that the first document has been entrusted with the second respondent in connection with the enquiry which is being conducted by him. The second respondent has stated that the documents summoned to be produced are unpublished official records, disclosure of which will be prejudicial to the interest of the State and that they are to be protected from disclosure under S.123 of the Evidence Act. Respondents also filed a petition under S.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the dismissal of the complaint. For a proper understanding of the stand taken by the respondents it will be advantageous to read Para.3 to 5 of that petition.

(2.) When this petition came up for admission, without ordering notice to the respondents, I requested the learned Director of Public Prosecutions to take notice of the petition and to argue the same on merits. The learned Director of Public Prosecutions got ready with the case. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Director of Public Prosecutions in extenso.

(3.) Before dealing with the various aspects pressed before me, I think it advantageous to refer to some earlier proceedings which took place before this court in connection with the visit of two Kuwaiti Nationals to the State. Petitions were moved under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the Ministers, MLAS and other officiate who are stated to be connected with the said visit. In those original petitions the first respondent herein was made a respondent. While disposing of O.P. 2128/86-C my learned brother Sukumaran, J. observed: