STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four criminal revision-petitions Nos. 314 of 1973, 319 of 1973, 320 of 1973 and 322 of 1973, are taken up for hearing and decision together as a common question of law is involved in all of them and are disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) ALL these applications in revision arise out of separate trials being held in each case in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The trials are in respect of offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It appears that in each of the 4 cases cognizance was taken on complaints which were made after police investigation under Chapter XIV of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigations no charge-sheets under sec. 173, Cr. P. C were filed, because the condition required to take cognizance of an offence under the Act is that there must be a complaint made by order of, or under authority from the appropriate Government, or some officer empowered by such Government, in this behalf.

(3.) 1 have perused the authorities cited above and considered the rival contentions. It will not be out of place to mention that in all the four cases complaints were filed u/s. 3 read with S. 9 of the Act in the Court of the District Magistrate, Jaipur, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was authorised by the State Government to do so. The District Magistrate, Jaipur, took cognizance upon the complaints under S. 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and committed the non-petitioners to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for trial under sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution to furnish copies of all the documents, relied upon by the prosecution, to the non-petitioners on the basis of the observations of this Court made by Hon'ble Gattanij. , as he then was, in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 847 of 1972 State vs. Moti Singh. The observations made in the last para while cancelling the bail of Moti Singh are as follows : - "it was urged by Mr. Dutta counsel for the respondent that documents u/s 173, Cr. P. C. even have not yet been supplied to him, if that be so the Sessions Judge will see that it is done as soon as possible. " In view of the said order of this Court, it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, committed an arror in directing the prosecution in each case to furnish copies of the statements and documents, on which it relied, to the non-petitioners. What is contended before me by Dr. S. K. Tiwari is that special procedure is provided in the Act itself for trial of persons accused of offences under the Act and so the accused cannot claim copies of documents referred to in S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as of right. In support of his above contention, he invited my attention to S. 14 of the Act, which provides that upon an application made by the prosecution in the course of a trial for an offence under this Act, the court can hold trials in camera or a part of trial in camera or prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings, if in his opinion the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State. According to him, in view of these provisions, if the prosecution is directed to furnish copies of secret documents to the accused persons in such cases, there is every likelihood that the disclosure of secrets may adversely affect the security of the State. The above contention has no force, because, no such application has been made by the prosecution to the Sessions Judge for holding trial or part of a trial in Camera or to prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings. The prosecution cannot be permitted to deny to the accussed the benefit of prior knowledge of the evidence that may be produced against him at the trial merely on the ground that a power has been given to the trial court to hold the trial or part of the trial in camera or to prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings on the application filed by the prosecution in a case under the Act.