9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Rayna Alimohamad Hothi (accused No.2) was also tried along with the appellant but it is not necessary to mention the facts relating to him as he has not challenged his conviction. On 2.6.1986 Rayna (accused No.2) was arrested while crossing the Indian Border along with two other Pakistani nationals. During interrogation it was revealed that since about 4 years they used to come to India, meet Alana (accused No.1) and two other Indian nationals and obtain information useful to Pakistani intelligence. Therefore, on 4.7.1986, Police Inspector B.B. Dwivedi obtained warrants under section 11(2) of the Act for searching houses of the said three Indian nationals. Police Inspector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused No.2 who was tried along with him. In appeal, the High Court held that for establishing the offence under section 3 it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the map is a secret document. The High Court also held that from the evidence on record it can safely be said that the map was found from the house of the appellant and that he was consciously possessing the same. The High Court believed that the appellant had obtained the map with a view to help accused No.2 who was engaged in spying for Pakistan. The High Court therefore convicted the appellant as stated above. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. The first is: whether the map(Ex.66) was obtained or collected by the appellant? The other questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained why the Panch witnesses were taken from Bhuj and not from Nana Dinara. The reason given by the prosecution that village Nana Dinara where the raid was to be carried out being a small village and inhabited mostly by relations of the appellant it would have been difficult to find an independent witness from that place was considered and found acceptable by the High Court. Even on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.I. Dwivedi and P.S.I. Gohil, we see no reason to disbelieve this explanation. It cannot, therefore, be said that the investigation was not fair and therefore independent corroboration was necessary. As nothing was found from the house of Rayna Sahab no complaint was lodged against him. P.I. Dwivedi had no reason to falsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State - (a)approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or (b)makes any sketch, plan, model or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or (c)obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
