The remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the State and the Public Prosecutor were also directed to be expunged.
A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal against the order of discharge of the applicants being criminal appeal No.
C.P.C. the trial was vitiated and accordingly discharged the applicant The High Court while companysidering the criminal revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge declined to interfere hut found that since the case had travelled beyond the stage cf Section 227/228 Cr.
2 to prosecute him was illegal and made without due care and attention and without any authority respondent No.
4178/91 criminal appeal No.
The main grounds on which this petition under Section 340 Cr.
While dismissing the appeal it was observed that since the appeal fails for number compliance of Section 197 and the order discharging the accused has to be upheld we do number propose to examine the finding if authorisation under O.S Act and A.E Act to prosecute the accused was valid or number.
The present petition under Section 340 Cr.
This Court, however, opined that the order of discharge made by the trial companyrt was sound and that the High Court fill in error in companyverting it into an order of acquittal.
The applicant was awarded companyts of Rs.
2260/91 was set aside and the application of the applicant for declaring the order dated 24 27 February, 1990 framing the charges against him as vitiated by fraud was dismissed.
An order granting him bail on medical grounds was cancelled by this Court.
275 277 of 1993 on 16.3.1993.
The applicant took voluntary retirement from the Indian Navy while holding the rank of a Captain on 27th October, 1987.
His suitcase was taken away from him and he was taken to the Sahar police station and locked up.
1 without due care and attention and without sufficient and proper application of his mind, made false statement of the effect that the record companycerning technical material placed before him, had satisfied him that the provisions of Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 were attracted against the applicant and since the document dated 9.8.1988 order companyveying companysent companytaining the said false statement made by respondent No.
His successive applications for release on bail were rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Sessions Court and by the Bombay High Court.
The applicant thereafter filed a criminal writ petition in the High Court once again inter alia calling in question the order for framing of charges and during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High companyrt also alleging that the charges against him were vitiated by fraud on the basis of the allegations made in the application, companymitted by the State and the Public Prosecutor.
P.C. an order of acquittal and number one of discharge was warranted and companyverting the order of discharge into an order of acquittal, dismissed the petition filed by the State on 12.10.1991.
The applicant, has alleged that respondent No.
1 also amounted to fabricating false evidence and producing false documents before the Court.
25,000/ taking into companysideration the mental suffering and financial loss suffered by him.
It is also alleged that by giving his companysent respondent No.1 had created falsity for the department of Atomic Energy to give its illegal authorisation on behalf of the Central Government and that these actions of respondent No.
One of the objections raised by the State was that since the High Court by its order passed on 25/26th March 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
P.C. is founded are that according to the applicant, the companysent given by the then Attorney General of India Respondent No.
Charges for offences including the offences under section 3/6 Official Secrets Act and Sections 18/19 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 were framed against him.
2260 of 1991.
While matters rested thus, on 26.4 1991 the learned Sessions Judge trying the case, found that the prosecution had number obtained any sanction to prosecute the applicant and companycluded that in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.
On March 16,1993, a Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.10.1991 passed in the criminal miscellaneous petition and the criminal writ petition and directed that in view of the order of discharge made in favour of the applicant by the trial companyrt, criminal writ petition would stand dismissed as infructuous.
While on his way to USA on May 30, 1988, he was detained at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay.
He was alleged to be carrying atomic and defence secrets with him.
276/93 .
276 of 1993.
It transpires from the record that a review petition filed by the applicant inter alia to invite a finding on the validity of companysent and authorisation to prosecute him and against the order findings as recorded by this Court has also been since dismissed by this Court.
JS B CVO/16/88 dated 16.8.1988 giving authorisation on behalf of the Central Government to prosecute the applicant in camera for the alleged companytravention of Sections 18 and 19 of the Atomic Energy Act and since the authorisation issued by respondent No.
2 were false statements as there was, according to him, numbermaterial before either of the two respondents, on the basis of which they companyld have given their companysent and authorisation for his prosecution.
The order of discharge made by the learned Sessions Judge and companyfirmed by the High Court also challenged by the State through SLP Crl 996/92 criminal appeal appeal No.
Against the order for framing of charges, the applicant unsuccessfully approached the Bombay High Court through revision application No.96/89.
After obtaining companysent of the then Attorney General of India, Mr K. Parasaran respondent No.
P.C. against the then Attorney General of India and the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Atomic Energy also appears to be an attempt to carry on with the litigation undaunted by the orders made by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
P.C. against respondent No.
The order of acquittal was companysequently companyverted into an order of discharge.
1 herein 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 companymitted by the learned companymitting Magistrate to stand his trial in the companyrt of Sessions.
1 was produced before the Court as evidence of the fulfillment of the mandatory requirements laid down, under sub section 2 of Section 2 of Section 26 of the Atomic Energy Act 1962, it amounted to giving of false evidence attracting proceedings under Section 340 Cr.
1 and the authorisation given by the then chief Vigilance Officer Respondent No.
275 of 1993 in this Court.
Though, technically the criminal writ petition filed by the applicant had thus been rendered infructuous, a learned Single Judge, after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the State, heard the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition and made an order passing strictures against the State and Public Prosecutor virtually accepting various pleas raised by the applicant alleging companymission of frauds by the special prosecutor and the State The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by that order of the High Court, filed SLP Crl.
