LALCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the night intervening the 1st and 2nd July. 1968, at about 1 or 1. 15 A. M. , P. W. 1 Rudsingh, P. W. 2 Phoolchand and P. W. 3 Khangarsingh members of B. S. F. party Who had laid in ambush sighted a man coming from the side of the Pakistan border. ON being challenged by Phoolchand P. W. 2, the man coming from the side of Pakistan border raised his hands and gave out his name as Ramchandra son of Nadarchand. Thereafter he was surrounded by the members of the B. S. F. including P. W. 1 Rudsingh, P. W. 2 Phoolchand and P. W. 3 Khangar Singh Ramchandra son of Nadarchand was taken by the members of the B. S. F. to the outpost Machiwada and on his search being taken before the Motbirs Hoturam P. W. 5, Darbara Singh P. W. 6 and Labhsingh, an index plan of Gang Canal Colony Ex 1, a letter in Urdu Ex, 2 and a few Pakistani coins were found in his possession along with other things in a plastic bag. The search memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared in pursuance of the search. The articles found from the bag were tied in the bundle. Thereafter Ramchandra son of Nadarchand was taken with the articles recovered from him to police station Karanpur which is at a distance of 14 miles from the police outpost Machiwada and first information report Ex. P-2 was filed by Phoolchand P. W. 2 at the police Station Karanpur on behalf of the Company Commander and Ramchandra son of Nadarchand was handed over to Jogendra Singh P. W. 30 incharge police station Karanpur along with the articles recovered from him on 2-7 68 at about 7. 30 P. M. ON arrest, Ramchandra gave out that he was merely a courier of Lalchand son of Bhagwansingh and in that capacity had brought the plan Ex, 1 and the letter in Urdu Ex. 2 for him. ON receipt of the first information report, P. W. 30 Jogendra Singh proceeded to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. 5 on 3-7-68. Having come to know of the name of Lalchand from Ramchandra, P. W. 30 Jogendra Singh suspected Lalchand in the shady affair and therefore on 5-7-68 he took the search of the house of Lalchand situated at village Kohni and recovered a chit Ex. 3 containing the addresses of certain people whom he suspected to be Pakistanis. He prepared the search memo in respect of the search made at the house of Lalchand, which is Ex. P-22. Lal Chand was then arrested on 5-7-68. Jogendra Singh on his part challaned both Lalchand and Ramchandra son of Nadarchand under the Indian Passports Act and the Opium Act in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karanpur.

(2.) FROM the investigation made by Jogendra Singh, some more facts came to light which aroused the suspicion of the authorities that Ramchandra son of Bhag-wan Singh, Lalchand son of Bhagwansingh, Gopalsingh son of Amarsingh and Ramchandra son of Nadarchand had entered into a conspiracy and engaged themselves in espionage activities by giving information to the enemy country namely Pakistan which information was directly or indirectly injurious to the safety and security of India. FROM the investigation, the Security Department came to the conclusion that the above named four persons had committed an offence under S. 120 B I. P. C. and also under S. 3 read with S. 9 of the Official Secrets Act (here-inafter referred to as the Act ). Sri U. N. Misra, the Superintendent Police, Security Department, Jaipur, therefore, filed a first information report Ex. P-35 before Mahi-manand P. W. 49 in-charge, Special Police Station, Ramganj at Jaipur on 19-7-68 for prosecuting the above named four persons udder S. 120-B LP G. and under S. 3 read with S. 9 of the Act. On the first information report made by Shri U. N. Misra, a case No. 2 of 1968 was registered against the above-named four persons. Investigation was then handed over by Mahimanand P. W. 49 to Sri Brij Gopal D. S. P. P. W. 47. Lalchand was formally arrested on 27th July, 1968, in case No. 2 of 1968 and Ramchandra son of Nadarchand was arrested on 3-8-68, in case No 2 of 1968. On 5 8-68, Lalchand's house at Bijaynagar was searched but nothing incriminating was found. The investigating agency took the search of Lalchand's house at Ganganagar on 7-8-68. At the search, Exs. P. 10, P. ll, P12 and P. 13 were recovered from the bag which was hanging on a wooden peg in the wall. The recovery memo is Ex. P. 9. Ex. P. 10 was a letter in Urdu addressed to an unnamed person by simply stating "pyare Dost". It transpired that Ex. 2 recovered from Ramchandra son of Nadarchand which was in Urdu was also in the hand of the same person who was the scribe of Ex. P-10. Ex. P. 10 contained the name of Gopalsingh accused. Taking clue from Ex P-10, the investigating agency arrested Gopalsingh at Jaipur on 12. 9. 68. On 22-9 68 Gopalsingh's house at Gajsinghpura was searched. Ex P-17 a small diary and Ex. P-55 a deportation order and a copy of the newspaper 'obdserve' Ex. P-56 were recovered from Gopalsingh's house. The search memo in this regard is Ex. P-17.

(3.) FROM the above analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that Gopalsingh had not only had contacts and association with Pakistan but was in close touch with the Pakistani Intelligence Officers and spies. At present we are only concerned with the consideration of the question as to Gopalsingh's complicity in the offence of conspiracy. It will appear from the testimony of the above witnesses that his illegal connections and contacts with the Pakistani spies and Intelligence Officers related back to the period since 1967 and it is on that account that the period of commencement of conspiracy has been specified to be the year 1967 in the charges framed against the accused appellants. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that once Gopalsingh's contacts with Pak nationals to do illegal act is established, he is liable to be convicted on the indictment of conspiracy. According to him conspiracy could be entered into between known or unknown person or even a foreigner. In this connection he relied upon Lennart vs. Director of Enforcement (3 ). We have carefully perused this authority. But it is distinguishable. In that case, a foreigner was found to have committed an illegal act in the territory of India. It is doubtful whether a foreigner residing in Pakistan and entering into conspiracy with an Indian national can be termed as doing illegal act, as doing acts for spying for his own country in our opinion cannot be held to be an illegal act in that country. We, therefore, are unable to hold that Gopalsingh was in conspiracy with unknown persons in Pakistan.