1996 (8) TMI 520 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Detention and Allegations of Carrying Atomic and Defence Secrets
2. Framing of Charges and Subsequent Legal Proceedings
3. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation
4. Petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Against Attorney General and Chief Vigilance Officer

Summary:

1. Detention and Allegations of Carrying Atomic and Defence Secrets:
The applicant, a retired Captain from the Indian Navy, was detained at Sahar International Airport, Bombay, on May 30, 1988, for allegedly carrying atomic and defence secrets. His successive bail applications were rejected by various courts, and an order granting him bail on "medical grounds" was cancelled by the Supreme Court.

2. Framing of Charges and Subsequent Legal Proceedings:
After obtaining consent u/s 26(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and authorization from the Chief Vigilance Officer, the applicant was committed to stand trial in the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under sections 3/6 of the Official Secrets Act and sections 18/19 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The applicant's revision application against the framing of charges was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. The Sessions Judge later discharged the applicant due to the absence of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., and the High Court converted this discharge into an acquittal. The Supreme Court, however, reverted the acquittal back to a discharge and awarded the applicant costs of Rs. 25,000.

3. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition alleging that the charges against him were vitiated by 'fraud' committed by the State and the Public Prosecutor. The High Court entertained this application and granted the prayer for failure of the State to file a counter affidavit. However, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, stating that the allegations of fraud were made without necessary foundation and that the High Court had misapplied the law.

4. Petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Against Attorney General and Chief Vigilance Officer:
The applicant filed a petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the then Attorney General of India and the Chief Vigilance Officer, alleging that their "consent" and "authorization" for his prosecution were "false statements" and amounted to giving "false evidence." The Supreme Court dismissed this petition, stating that the applicant was under a grave misconception of law and facts. The Court found no prima facie material to suggest that the respondents had given "false evidence" or "fabricated false evidence." The application was deemed misconceived, untenable, and without merit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition, emphasizing that finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings and that the applicant's continuous litigation was an abuse of the judicial system.