1981 (1) TMI 286 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
2. Whether Section 14 of the Act deprives the accused of the right to access statements of witnesses.
3. Validity of the High Court's direction to hold the Commitment Inquiry by another Magistrate.
4. The propriety of the Magistrate's and lawyer's conduct regarding the production of notes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923:
The central controversy in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The appeal challenges the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had set aside the trial court's order and remitted the case for fresh hearing. The High Court had interpreted Section 14 to mean that the court has the discretion to exclude the public from the proceedings and prohibit the publication of any evidence given in the course of the proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 14 and concluded that it is an enabling provision that allows the court to hold proceedings in camera but does not override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) relating to enquiries or trials. The Court emphasized that Section 14 does not deprive the accused of the right to access statements of witnesses recorded by the police or the Magistrate.

2. Whether Section 14 of the Act deprives the accused of the right to access statements of witnesses:
The High Court had held that Section 14 of the Act not only allows the exclusion of the public from the proceedings but also bars the accused from accessing statements of witnesses. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that Section 14 does not prohibit the accused from getting copies of the statements recorded by the police or the Magistrate. The Court highlighted that depriving the accused of this right would be unreasonable and prejudicial, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the term "publication of any evidence" in Section 14 is meant to prevent public disclosure during the hearing, not to deny the accused access to the evidence.

3. Validity of the High Court's direction to hold the Commitment Inquiry by another Magistrate:
The High Court had directed that the Commitment Inquiry be held by another Magistrate, criticizing the trial Magistrate for not compelling the defense lawyer to produce his notes. The Supreme Court found no impropriety in the Magistrate's conduct, stating that the Magistrate was justified in not compelling the lawyer to surrender his register, which contained privileged communication. The Court held that the High Court's strictures against the Magistrate and the lawyer were unwarranted. The Supreme Court did not agree with the High Court's direction to have the case tried by another Magistrate, noting that the original Magistrate might have been transferred by now, and the case should be inquired into by an available Magistrate.

4. The propriety of the Magistrate's and lawyer's conduct regarding the production of notes:
The High Court had criticized the defense lawyer for refusing to show his notebook, which contained notes of the evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the lawyer's claim of privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act, stating that the register contained instructions from the client, which are privileged communications. The Court found no impropriety in the lawyer's conduct and held that the Magistrate was correct in not compelling the lawyer to produce the register. The Court emphasized that the lawyer's actions were in line with the law, and the High Court's strictures were unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's interpretation of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, holding that it does not deprive the accused of the right to access statements of witnesses. The Court found no fault in the conduct of the Magistrate and the defense lawyer and deemed the High Court's strictures against them unwarranted. The case was directed to be inquired into by an available Magistrate in light of the Supreme Court's observations. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.