Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had convicted the appellant under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The appellant, Sama Alana Abdulla, was accused No.1 in a case involving espionage and collection of sensitive information. Accused No.2, Rayna Alimohamad Hothi, was arrested on 2.6.1986 while crossing the Indian border with two other Pakistani nationals. Interrogation revealed that they had been coming to India for about four years, meeting the appellant and other Indian nationals to obtain information useful to Pakistani intelligence. Consequently, on 4.7.1986, search warrants were obtained under Section 11(2) of the Act. A raid was conducted; first the residence of Rayna Sahab was searched but nothing was found, then the appellant's house was searched and a BSF map (Ex.66) was recovered showing an underground pipeline constructed for carrying water from Bhuj to Khavda Border for Army and BSF personnel. The appellant was charged and tried for offences under Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c) read with Section 9 and under Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant, holding that the evidence of police officers alone was insufficient to prove recovery and that the prosecution failed to prove the map was a secret document. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that secrecy of the map was not necessary under Section 3(1)(c) and that the evidence proved conscious possession. The Supreme Court identified two questions: whether the map was obtained or collected by the appellant, and whether the High Court correctly interpreted Section 3(1)(c) regarding the secrecy requirement. On the first question, the Court examined the evidence. The panch witness did not support the prosecution, but police officers P.I. Dwivedi and P.S.I. Gohil deposed that the map was found from a tin trunk kept on a cupboard. The Court accepted the explanation that panch witnesses were taken from Bhuj because village Nana Dinara was small and inhabited mostly by relations of the appellant. The Court held that the evidence of police officers could not be rejected merely because they were police witnesses, and their evidence was corroborated by the panchnama. Additionally, the appellant's father testified that his son was working as a source for Pakistani intelligence and had gone to Pakistan once or twice. The Court found that the manner of concealment indicated conscious possession, and since no explanation was offered, the presumption under Section 3(2) of the Act applied. On the second question, the Court interpreted Section 3(1)(c). It held that the word 'secret' qualifies only 'official code or pass word' and not any sketch, plan, model, article, note or other document or information. The comma and the word 'or' after 'password' indicated this legislative intent. This view was supported by the Calcutta High Court in Sunil Ranjan Das vs. The State and by the wording of Section 3(2). The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the High Court's conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Interpretation of Section 3(1)(c) - Requirement of Secrecy - The word 'secret' in Clause (c) qualifies only the words 'official code or pass word' and not any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information - The comma and the word 'or' after 'password' indicate legislative intent - This interpretation is supported by sub-section (2) of Section 3 where 'secret' is used only with respect to official code or password - High Court and Calcutta High Court in Sunil Ranjan Das vs. The State correctly interpreted the provision - Held that conviction under Section 3(1)(c) does not require sketch, plan etc. to be secret (Paras 9-12). B) Criminal Law - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Section 3(2) Presumption - Conscious Possession - When a map was found concealed in a tin trunk in appellant's house and no explanation was offered for its possession, presumption under Section 3(2) arose that the map was obtained or collected for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State - Father's evidence that appellant worked as a source for Pakistani intelligence and had gone to Pakistan once or twice corroborated adverse inference - Held that appellant was in conscious possession of the map (Paras 7-8). C) Criminal Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Police Witnesses and Panch Witnesses - Evidence of police officers who were members of the raiding party cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they are police witnesses - Their evidence was corroborated by the panchnama (Ex.24) - Selection of panch witnesses from Bhuj instead of village Nana Dinara was justified because the village was small and inhabited mostly by relations of the appellant - Held that investigation was not unfair and independent corroboration was not necessary (Paras 6-8). D) Criminal Law - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c), 9, 10 - Recovery of Map Useful to Enemy - Recovery of a BSF map (Ex.66) from appellant's residence showing an underground pipeline for Army and BSF personnel, and appellant's involvement in supplying information to Pakistani nationals engaged in spying constituted offences under Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c) read with Section 9 and under Section 10 - Held that conviction by High Court was proper (Paras 2-4, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the map (Ex.66) was obtained or collected by the appellant; whether the High Court was right in holding that it is not necessary for a conviction under section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 that the sketch, plan, etc. should be a secret document
Final Decision
Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of the appellant. It held that the map was recovered from appellant's house, he was in conscious possession, and the presumption under Section 3(2) applied. It also held that under Section 3(1)(c), the word 'secret' qualifies only 'official code or pass word' and not sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- The word 'secret' in Section 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act
- 1923 qualifies only 'official code or pass word' and not any sketch
- plan
- model
- article
- note or other document or information
- presumption under Section 3(2) of Official Secrets Act
- 1923 arises when possession of sketch
- note
- document or information is proved and no explanation offered
- evidence of police officers cannot be rejected solely because they are police witnesses
- conscious possession can be inferred from manner of concealment
- selection of panch witnesses from nearby town due to village inhabited by relations of accused does not render investigation unfair
