SUPERINTENDENT & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL versus SATYEN BHOWMICK AND ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 15-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
• 
661 
SUPERINTENDENT & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, 
WEST BENGAL 
v. 
SATYEN BHOWMICK AND ORS. 
January 15, 1981 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Official Secrets Act-Section 14-Scope of-Advocate taking, notes on 
evidence of witnesses in respect of proceedings held in camera-Court, if could 
. prohibit taking notes-Court 'if could compel the advocate to produce his notes 
for inspection-Advocate if could claim privilege under section 126 of Evidence C 
Act. 
Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act provides that in addition to and without 
prejudice to any powers which a Court may possess to order the exclusion of 
the public from any proceedings if, in the course of proceedings before a Court 
against any person for an offenc.e under this Act, the prosecution makes an 
application that publication of any evidence to be given would be prejudicial D 
to the safety of the State. The Court may make an order prohibiting the 
publication of evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the 
course of proceedings if it is of opinion that the proceedings 'vould be prejudicial 
to the safety of the State. 
On the allegation that the accused had passed on some military secrets to 
the enemy resulting in serious detriment to the safety and security of the country 
E 
the accused were charge-sheeted under sections 3, 9 and ,10 of the Act. 
During the commitment inquiry the prosecution prayed that the accused 
should not be allowed to have access to or be given copies of statements of 
witnesses recorded by the Magistrate. The defence lawyers were allowed to 
take notes of the statements of witnesses. When the Magistrate asked the 
defence Ja,vyers to produce their note-books for perusal, they claJmed privilege 
F 
under section 126 of the Evidence Act on the ground that they contained certain 
instructions given to them by the accused which amounted to privileged com-
munication a·nd that for this reason they could not be looked into by the Court. 
The Magistrate upheld the objection . 
Purporting to folloW one of its earlier decisions the High Court in a revision 
filed by the State held that the Magistrate should have taken legal action against 
G 
·the lawyer for flouting its order by not producing the note-books on the ground 
of privilege. It also held that in view of the provisions of section 14 of the 
Act not only could the public be excluded from the hearing but evP:n the 
statements of witnesses recorded by the C.ourt could not be made available to 
the accused or his counsel. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the opening words of section 14 
H 
really amounted to a non-obstante clause overriding the provisions of all Acts 
including the Code of Criminal Procedure and the mode of trial contemplated 
'hy section 14 would take precedence over the mode of trial provided bys. 251-A 
A 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R, 
ors. 252 of the Code and (2) the l\,Iagi~rr:-:tc could not only hold the proceedings 
in camera but could exclude publication of any evidence, including the right 
of accused to get notes of the statements recorded during the police investigation 
or during inquiry or trial. 
HELD : The opening words of section 14 '·in addition and without prejudice 
to any powers \Vhich a Court may possess" clearly rev~al that the intention 
B 
of the legislature was to give only an enabling additional power to the Court 
regarding holding of the proceedings in camera. The legislature never intended 
that the inherent powers possessed by the Court to hold the proceedings in 
camera in suitable cases should in any way be affected by section 14. 
The 
intention was merely to give an addition<il power to strengthen the hands of 
the Court for holding the proceedings in camera where tbe necessities of the 
situation demanded. [669F-H] 
c 
D 
It is we11 settkd that a non-obstante clause has the efft:l"t of overriding the 
provisions of a law or of the law in which the said clause is inserted. 
The 
non-obstante clause cannot reasonably be read as overriding anythil)g contained 
in any relevant existing law which is inconsistent with the new enactment. 
Normally a non-obstante clause is always expressed in a negative form i.e. by 
using the words "notwithstanding anything contained" or "an:Ything contained 
in previous law shall not affect the provisions of a particular Act" and so on. 
[670B-EJ 
In the instant case the words "in addition and without prejudice to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.