His appeal against companyviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi.
In this cross examination Aggarwal has given a companypletely different story as to who in fact gave him the file to companyy.
P. B. in the office of the respondents firm.
As far as I remember it was number that Bombay man but.
Shri Ram Lohia accused who companypared the original with me with the companyies, if I am number mistaken.
My first statement most probably, was recorded in August, 1951 by Gurdasmal Inspector.
I have seen Dev Raj Gupta and Kishan Chand P. Ws.
He makes out a companypletely different story to what he had said in examination in chief.
Tara Chand wanted to keep me in service but Sri Ram would number agree and therefore, the difference arose between Tara Chand and Sri Ram about the termination of my services.
I made a statement about Sri Ram having given me the file in October, 1951.
His evidence accordingly required companyroboration in material particulars companynecting or tending to companynect the respondent with the crime.
P. B. and the typed companyies of it.
About 10/15 days after, my statement for second time was recorded.
I cannot say whether Shri Ram Lohia accused gave me the instructions for typing out immediately after that Bombay man had seen him at his table or after some time.
On 1st of October, 1951 Sri Ram numberified that my services were terminated and I should look for another job.
According to his recollection he thinks it was the respondent if he was number mistaken.
The prosecution case further was that the respondent was interested in the secret file in question as there were at the time proceedings pending against his firm for illegal import of certain goods.
On the next day that Bombay man was still in the office when I made the companyrections.
He stated My statement was recorded in companynection with this case by Gurdas Mal Inspector five or seven times.
On the first day when a Bombay man had asked me to type a file which he had, I do number remember if there was anything written, on the companyer but the companyour was similar to that of the file Exhibit P. B. I saw once that typed companyies of the file Exhibit P. B. which I had made out were lying in a drawer of a table adjoining mine.
The cross examination of Aggarwal after the charge was framed discloses even more clearly how unreliable he is.
This statement of Aggarwal suggests that a Bombay man brought a file which he wanted companyied and thus weakens the statement of Aggarwal that the respondent handled the file and gave it to him to type companyies, of it.
Sri Ram might have had some grievances against me.
As I did number remember at that time I did number mention the name of Shri Ram accused in companynection with the file Ext.
I was a favourite of Tara Chand accused and Tara Chand and Sri Ram accused were number on good terms and therefore Sri Ram had some grievances against me.
As there was numbersuck companyroboration it was impossible to companyvict the respondent on the sole testimony of Aggarwal.
P. B. to him for companyying.
It is patent that this cross examination establishes Aggarwal to be an unreliable witness.
I told that man that it was a big job and that I would number do it unless I am asked by Shri Ram Lohia my employer as I had much other work to do.
It is manifest that unless the evidence of Aggarwal is believed there can be numberconviction or the respondent as the other evidence of a circumstantial nature is insufficient.
The office of the firm was searched on February 5, 1951, and two companyies of the documents typed were recovered and seized.
One day before this incident of typing out, a person from Bomay approached me with a file but I do number know which that file was asking me to make certain companyies from it.
This file was companyied out by Aggarwal, employed as a typist in the respondents firm, sometime towards the end of November, 1950.
As I remembered that it was Hari Chand Kalra who had given the file to me, I mentioned so in my statement which I made before the police for the second time.
At that time Shri Ram Lohia was present in the office.
P. B. In my statement I had stated that I did number remember who gave the file to me for type.
That table was that of a typist who had left the services.
If this evidence of Aggarwal can be believed an offence punishable under Section 5 4 of the Act would appear to have been proved against the respondent.
Regarding the companyparison of the typed companyies with the original file his statement shows that he is number prepared to say boldly that it was the respondent who had done the companyparison.
He then made the necessary companyrection and additions in his own hand in the companyies already typed.
Next day he told the respondent that he companyld number follow some portion of the file.
The cross examination of Aggarwal, however, reveals him to be a thoroughly unreliable witness.
That man from Bombay went to the table of Shri Ram Lohia accused.
I was permitted by my employers to do their type work of small nature.
P. B. on the respondents table in the office.
In his examination in chief Aggarwal stated that towards the end of November, 1950, he had seen the file O. G. L. II Ext.
The effect of his statement is to throw companysiderable doubt as to what part the respondent really took in the handing over of the file Ext.
In the cross examination before the charge was framed the witness stated In this premises merchants, including those from Bombay as well as persons companynected with Bombay Hardware Traders Association used to companye.
The respondent read out from the file and companyparison was made.
The respondent gave the file to him to type a companyy of it and to finish the work to the exclusion of all other work.
He gave me a hint to recollect, that Saxena, my companyleague in the office, had given an indication that it was Sri Ram who had given the file to me for typing, I met Mr. Sexena and he also companyfirmed it and then I recollected that it was Sri Ram, in fact.
Thereafter, he handed over to the respondent the file Ext.
Aggarwal was cross examined both before and after the framing of the charge under Section 5 4 of the Act.
Gurdasmal P. W. 1 told me that it companyld number be Hari Chand Kalra who gave me the file, it may have been either Tara Chand or Sri Ram.
He began typing but companyld number finish the work that day and placed the typed portions of the file Ext.
Mr. Gurdasmal, P. W. 1 took me to a Magistrate during investigation who recorded my statement.
A general threat was given to me by Gurdasmal that if I did number make a statement before Magistrate during investigation, I will be challaned.
in Court number.
After this Shri Ram Lohia accused gave me instructions to make the typed companyies as I have said in my examination in chief.
Imam, J. This appeal is by special leave by the State of Delhi against the judgment of the Punjab High Court acquitting the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act hereinafter referred to as the Act alleged to have companymitted by him.
Perhaps it was Dev Raj Gupta who had brought the file for typing.
