DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAO versus MR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 13-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR.BUDHIKOTASUBBARAO 
v. 
MR. K. PARASARAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 13, 1996 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Sections 195, 107 and 340. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 191, 192 and 193. 
C 
Official Secrets Act, 1923 : Sections 3 and 6. 
Atomic Energy Ac~ 1962: Sections 18.19 and 26(2). 
Prosecution for offences under Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy 
Act-Conselll and authorization given by Attorney General and Chief 
D Vigilance Officer of Department of Atomic Ene~alidity of-Allegation of 
accused that consent and authorisation for his prosecution was given 'without 
due care and attention' and 'without proper application of mind' which 
amounted to giving 'false evidence' and 'fabricated false evidence' for use in 
judicial proceedings-Held accusation of accused was reckless and bereft of 
E any factual foundation-Held even if this submission is, for the sake of 
arguments accepted (though there is no basis for accepting the same) it cannot 
lead to an inference that the document conveying consent was a 'false 
document' or that giving of 'consent' amounted to giving of 'false evidence' 
or 'fabricating false evidence' at any stage of judicial proceedings. 
F 
Practice and Procedure 
G 
Finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings-No litigant 
has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order 
to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes-Easy access to justice 
should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Miscel-
laneous petition No. 3830 of 1996. 
In 
H 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 275-77 of 1993. 
574 
B.K SUBBARAO v. K. P ARASARAN 
575 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.91 and 12.10.91 of the A 
Bombay High Court in Cr!. W.P. No. 180/91 and C.R.A. No. 123 of 1991. 
S.M. Jadhav for the Applicant/Opp. Party 
In-person for the Respondents. 
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents No. 2. 
The foliowing Order of the Court was delivered ; 
DR. ANAND, J. We have heard the applicant who has appeared in 
person at length. 
B 
c 
The applicant took voluntary retirement from the Indian Navy while 
holding the rank of a Captain on 27th October, 1987. While on this way to 
USA on May 30, 1988, he was detained at the Sahar International Airport, 
Bombay. His suitcase was taken away from him and he was taken to the D 
Sahar Police station and locked up. He was alleged to be carrying atomic 
and defence secrets with him. His successive applications for release on 
bail were rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Sessions Court and . 
by the Bombay High Court. Ao order granted him bail on, "medical 
grounds" was cancelled by this Court. After obtaining consent of the then 
Attorney General of India, Mr. K. Parasaran (respondent No. 1 herein) E 
under Section 26(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and authorisation from 
the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy Mr. S.K. 
Bhandarkar (respondent No. 2 herein) for proceeding against the applicant 
and prosecuting him for the various offences alleged against him, he was 
committed by the learned committing Magistrate to stand his trial in the F 
court of Sessions. Charges for offences including the offences under Sec-
tion 3/6 Official Secrets Act and Sections 18/19 of the Atomic Energy Act, 
1962 were framed against him. Against the order for framing of charges, 
the applicant unsuccessfully approached the Bombay High Court through 
revision application No. 96/89. The applicant thereafter file a criminal writ 
petition in the High Court once again inter alia calling in question the order G 
for framing. of charges and during the pendency of the writ petition, he 
fded a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High Court also alleging that 
the charges against him were vitiated by 'fraud' on the basis of the allega-
tions made in the application, committed by the State and the Public 
Prosecutor. While matters rested thus, on 26.4.1991 the learned Sessions H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Judge trying the case, found that the prosecution had not obtained any 
sanction to prosecute the applicant and concluded that in the absence of 
sanction under Section 197 Cr.P .C. the trial was vitiated and accordingly 
discharged the applicant. The High Court while considering the criminal 
revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge declined 
B 
c 
to intere
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.