HAKIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The matter was heard on 6-8-1998.

(2.) THE applicants are facing S. T No. 270 of 1987 before the special Judge (D. A. A.), Farrukhabad. At the initial stage of the proceedings there were certain prayers for calling certain documents as also for keeping certain documents in sealed cover. THE court had allowed the prayers. By subsequent application, at the initial stage itself, certain other papers were called for and the court had directed that the matter shall be considered at the defence stage. However, when the defence stage came and the accused persons pressed for production of the documents (a wireless register and Mool Panchayat Nama), the Stale took up a plea of privilege under Sections 123,124 and 125 of the Indian Evidence Act and the plea was accepted by the Trial Judge and the defence prayer was disallowed. This order dated 21-7-1998, passed in S. T. No. 270 of 1987, is under challenge in the instant proceeding.

(3.) WHAT Section 123 prohibits is of giving evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of the State. The documents called for were the Mool Panchayat Nama and certain wire less registers wherein despatch and receipt of wireless messages and the contents of such messages are maintained. It is the defence that the wireless message on which the defence proposed to rely would contradict certain other statements brought on record. The Mool Panchayat Nama or the wireless registers could not be regarded as unpublished official record and the privilege herein is a narrow one whose foundation is an apprehended in jury to public interest. It was not indicated in the letter of the Superintendent of Police or the order of the learned Court below as to how public interest would be injured by production of Mool Panchayat Nama or the wireless register. Privilege under Section 123, therefore, could not have been claimed in the instant case. The same logic would apply towards applica tion of Section 124 to the given set of circumstances. Here also the primary con sideration for claiming privilege is that the public interest would suffer by such dis closure. The Mool Panchayat Nama or the wireless registers, moreover, are not com munications in official confidence as those were routine procedural affairs of police station or investigation. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, may not also have application in the instant case.