SUNIL RANJAN DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sunil Ranjan Das is being tried with three others, namely, Mohit Chowdhury, Tarapada Chakrabarty and A. L. Das in case No. C-472 of 1967 before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. By an order dated the 2nd of September, 1970, passed by Sri H. Barari, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta; a charge under section 120b I. P. C. read with section 3 (1) (c) and section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, was framed against the petitioner and the three other accused persons. This was the only charge against the petitioner, but there were other specific charges under different sections of the Official Secrets Act against the other accused persons. Against this order the petitioner only has come up before this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule.

(2.) THE present case against the petitioner and the other accused person was started on the 10th of July, 1967, on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by Sri Ramendra Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Division, central Bureau of Investigation New Delhi.

(3.) INITIALLY a case was registered at the Burtolla Police Station, Calcutta against the petitioner and others but this case was subsequently made over for investigation to the C. B. I. , who on 24. 10. 66 registered a case, being R. C. No. 15/1966 under sections 120b, 124a and 505 I. P. C. , section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act and section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. On 12 June 1967the Police submitted a final report in respect of two of the accused persons but did not submit any final report or challan as regards the petitioner and two others, who were thereupon discharged by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. On the same day the Police submitted a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate against the petitioner and against the other two discharged accused persons and against A. L. Das on allegations of offences under the Official Secrets Act. By an order dated 5, July, 1967 all the accused persons including the petitioner were discharged on account of the absence of the complainant. There after on, July 1967 a fresh complaint was filed on the basis of which the aforesaid case was started and charges were framed against the petitioner and the others,