BADRISINGH THAKUR Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/accused have preferred this revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, Damoh, upholding the objection that certain documents are secret and cannot be ordered to be produced in view of section 14(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.

(2.) The applicant No. 2 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Hindi Weekly Malay Anchal published from Indore. The applicant No. 1 is the local correspondent of the Weekly at Damoh. At the relevant time Gurubachan Singh Sahota was the, Superintendent of Police Damoh. The Weekly in its issue dated 12/7/1979 published an article under the caption Gurubachan Singh Sahota, Police Superintendent, Damoh, a corrupt and robber in police uniform, his misbehavior with Chamelibai. It was alleged that he is an incompetent and corrupt police officer, constructed a house worth a lakh or rupees at Sahdol, has been auctioning police stations, he has been frequently visiting the house of Chamelibai at Rajpura and misbehaved with her and tried to take liberty with her, she made a complaint against him to the State Government, inspite of refusal of loan, he is constructing another house at Jabalpur, in his bank accounts and that of his wife, Rs. 10,000.00 is being deposited every month, it should be enquired as to from whom the money comes, he has transferred his subordinates for not-co-operating in his activities and crimes are on the increase. The Public Prosecutor, Damoh, after being authorised by the Law Department, filed a complaint under sections 500/501/120-B Indian Penal Code against the applicants for publishing the said article against Gurubachanbn Singh Sahota in their weekly. The complaint was registered and the applicants appeared in pursuance to the process issued. After recording statements of Gurubachan Singh Sahota and P.S.I. Dubey, charge under section 500 Indian Penal Code was framed against the applicant No. 1 and charges under sections 500 and 501 Indian Penal Code against the applicant No. 2. The case was then posted for cross-examination after charge.

(3.) On 12.5.1981, the applicants filed an application for production of papers concerning (i) enquiry conducted by Shri Bhagchand Shukla. D.I.G. Police on the complaint of Chamelibai against Gurubachan Singh; and (ii) enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Vigilance Commission, Sagar about the purchase of the plot by Gurubachan Singh at Jabalpur. The application was not opposed and was allowed. On 17.8.1981, the Superintendent of Special Police Establishment, Sagar produced the enquiry papers concerning the purchase of plot at Jabalpur and later on inspection of these documents was given to the applicants. On 4.2.1982, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilence Commission produced two sealed packets concerning the enquiry papers against Gurubachan Singh but he claimed privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act. He was asked to file an affidavit in support. An objection supported by affidavit was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of police on 15.3.1982, claiming privilege that enquiry was going on against Gurubachan Singh under the Adhiniyam of 1981 and disclosing of the papers at this stage would affect the enquiry, evidence would not be forthcoming and it would be against public interest. The applicants replied saying that the documents are not privileged, enquiry has already given to the applicants after the order of the Court for production of the documents and Gurubachan Singh is well aware about the complaint made against him. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order upheld the objection that these are secret documents under section 14(1) of the Adhiniyam and the same be returned to the office of the Lokayukt, Bhopal. However, the privilege claimed under section 123 of the Evidence Act was over-ruled; saying that enquiry papers about purchase of plot at Jabalpur were already submitted in Court and the parties got opportunity in inspecting the same and regarding enquiry papers on the complaint of Chamelibai the affidavit does not sufficiently state as to how the production would prejudice the affairs of the State.