9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the authorisation for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act. 2. Necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting a retired Armed Forces officer. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session in trying the case without special empowerment. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Alleged breach of Article 21 of the Constitution. 6. Appropriate relief and compensation for the accused. 7. Correctness of the order of discharge by the Sessions Judge. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Authorisation for Prosecution: The Court examined the authorisation letters from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Atomic Energy. It was found that these letters did not explicitly state that they were issued for and on behalf of the Central Government. The phrase "other cognate offences" used in the authorisation was interpreted to exclude offences under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act. The Court concluded that the authorisations did not pass the test of legal validity as they were not issued by the appropriate Government and did not cover all necessary sections. 2. Necessity of Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The Court held that sanction under Section 197 was necessary for prosecuting the accused, a retired Naval Officer, as the alleged offences were connected to his official duties. The Court referred to the charges framed, which indicated that the documents in question were obtained during his tenure as a Naval Officer. The Court emphasized that the protection under Section 197 applies to acts done in the discharge of official duties or purporting to act in such capacity. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session: The Court upheld the submission that under Section 13(1) of the Official Secrets Act, only a specially designated Court can take cognizance of and try offences under this Act. Since the Court of Session was not specially empowered, the proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The Court noted that the complaint procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. The complainant and witnesses were not examined before process issuance, which is mandatory in cases instituted on complaint by public servants acting in a private capacity. 5. Alleged Breach of Article 21 of the Constitution: The Court found that the procedural safeguards under Article 21 were breached at various stages. The investigation and prosecution failed to substantiate the charges with cogent material and did not follow the prescribed legal procedures. The Court observed that the accused had been subjected to an unfair and protracted legal process. 6. Appropriate Relief and Compensation: The Court acknowledged the accused's right to seek compensation for wrongful detention and breach of procedural safeguards. However, it did not award compensation in this proceeding, leaving it open for the accused to adopt appropriate legal measures. 7. Correctness of the Order of Discharge: The Court modified the order of discharge by the Sessions Judge to an order of acquittal, as the trial had proceeded beyond the stage of framing charges, and the only permissible conclusion was either conviction or acquittal. Conclusion: The Criminal Revision Application filed by the State was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted. The Court rejected the State's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and granted a six-week period for maintaining the status quo ante to allow the State to consider further action. The documents seized were to remain in safe custody, with parties allowed to apply to the trial Court for appropriate orders after the appeal period.
|
