LexSAMA ALANA ABDULLA versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAMA ALANA ABDULLA v. STATE OF GUJARAT NOVEMBER 16, 1995 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Official Secrets Act, 1923-Section 3(1)(C)-lnterpretation of 'secret'-!! qualified sketch, plan, model Etc. Evidence Act-Generally-Police witnesses-Evidence of-Reliability. During interrogation of one R and two other Pakistani nationals, it A B c was revealed that the appellant was involved in passing on information useful to Pakistani intelligence. ~ raid was conducted in the house of appellant and a map prepared by the BSF, showing a sect~on of an underground pipe-line constructed for carrying water to border area for D the Army and BSF personnel, was recovered from the said house. There were two panch witnesses to the recovery of the map. During the trial only one panch witness was examined as the other witness had died. The said panch witness did not support the case of the prosecution. The other two persons who were present at the time of E recovery and supported the case of the prosecution were police witnesses who were members of the raiding party. The appellant was charged under Sections 3(l)(a) and 3(1)(c) read with Section 9 and Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Section 3(l)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 prescribes penalty inter alia for obtaining, collecting, recording or publishing or communicat- ing "any secret official code or passward, or any .sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information." F The Sessions Court acquitted the appellant on the ground the G prosecution could not establish that the map was a secret document and also on the ground that the evidence of the police officers was not sufficient to prove that the map was recovered from the house of the appellant. In appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. H 279 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, this Court B c HELD : 1. The word 'secret' in section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 qualifies "otlicial code or pass word" and not "any sketch, plan, model, article or not or other document or information". This is clear from the comma and the word 'or' which comes after the word "password". From the way the sub-section is worded it becomes apparent that the qualifying word ;'secret" has been used only with respect to or in relation to "official code or password" and the legislature did not intend that the sketch, plan model, article, note, document or information should also be secret. [283-B-C; D-E] Sunil Ranjan Das v. The State, 77 CWN 106, approved. 2. The evidence of the police witnesses cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are police witnesses and were members of the raiding party. D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 5/6 & 13.8.91 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. No. 147 of 1990. E Krishan Mahajan, Ms. Simmi and P.H. Parekh for the Appellant. F Yashank Adhyaru, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee and Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NANAVATI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1991, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1990. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal of the appellant (accused No. 1) by the learned Sessions Judge, G Kuchchh, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1988 and convicted him for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c) both read with section 9 and also under section 10 of the Official Secrets, Act, 1923 (l}~reinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Rayna Alimohamad Hothi (accused No. 2) was also tried along with H, the appellant but it is not necessary t.i mention the facts relating to him S.A.ABDULLAv. STATE[NANAVATl,J.] 281 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 interroga- tion 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. A B Therefore, on 4.7.1986, Police Inspector B.B. Dwivedi obtained war- rants under section 11(2) of the Act for searching houses of the said three Indian nationals. Police Inspector B.B. Dwivedi and the raiding party first
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.