2 is in respect of classified information obtained by him when he was in Naval service.
it having been issued by an authority other than the Central Government it was number in accordance with law.
Although the application was rejected, on 18th September 1989 but an observation was made that there was numberimpediment in way of the Trial Judge in altering or modifying or reviewing any of the charges or even framing new or additional charge.
From the documents recovered, from search of the hand bag on 30th and residence on 31st and his interrogation, it appeared that he was guilty of violating provisions of O.S. Act and A.E. Act, therefore, a companyplaint was filed, against him after obtain ing permission, under Section 3 i c , 3 1 c read with Sections 9, 6 2 a and 6 2 b of the O. S. Act and 24 1 d read with Sections 18 2 and 24 2 d read with Section 19 b of the A.E. Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate who being prima facie satisfied of the offences and their gravity companymitted the accused to stand trial before the Court of Sessions.
August 1990 rejected the application, restored the earlier charges and framed a charge under Section 5 as well.
The accused however invoked inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking review of the order dated 6th June, 1989.
Retention of Identity Card issued during service may be dereliction, of duty but it was companymitted when the accused was in service and it was issued to him while discharging his duties as a Naval officer.
His residence was searched on the next day.
Validity of the charges, thus, framed was challenged by way of Writ Petition Criminal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and it was claimed that entire proceedings being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution were liable to be quashed.
It was challenged by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court.
276 of 1993.
Solicitor General, B.R. Handa, Mrs. Manjula Rao, S.M. Jadhav, A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
But it was permitted to be withdrawn.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1991 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
987 of 1992 and the third improper.
Dr. B. Subba Rao Respondent in person.
277 of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The Trial Judge turned down the plea by order dated 24/27th February, 1989 and fixed date for framing the charge.
The order was set aside on 3rd/4th April, 1990 by a learned Single Judge and the Trial Judge was directed to frame charges both under Sections 3 and 5 of the O.S. Act.
Although facts are brief and simple too, but the High Court, unfortunately, instead of companyfining itself to the legality of discharge, either for lack of the sanction under Section 197 of the Code or for the improper authorisation under the Official Secrets Act 1923 in brief the O.S. Act and Atomic Energy Act 1962 referred to as A.E.Act the two statutes for violation of which the accused was charged, was led away to record findings as if the accused was deliberately subjected to undue harassment by the State aided by the alleged unreasonable attitude of the Public Prosecutor.
This provided an occasion to the accused for starting proceedings, afresh, for his discharge and claim in the alternative to frame charge under Section 5 of O.S. Act instead of under Section The application was allowed by the Trial Judge on 15th January 1990, and the charges under A.E. Act were dropped.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Revision Application No.
Altaf Ahmed, Addl.
M. Tarkunde, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.K. Panka for the Inter venor.
So much so that the learned Judge allowed an application of the accused, in the revision filed by the State against his discharge, and set aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge in brief ASJ framing charges against him as it was vitiated by fraud, merely because the State did number file any companynter affidavit and insisted that the argument being same as were advanced in the revision it was number necessary to file any reply, even though the learned Judge was aware that the accused had earlier approached the High Court against the order rejecting his application that numbercharge was liable to be framed against him without any success.
Needless to say that the first was unnecessary the second illegal and is subject matter of appeal No.
The charge under the O.S. Act was altered to one under Section 5 of the Act.
Not only that the learned Judge did number spare, even, this Co art, for cancelling bail of the accused at earlier stage.
277 of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
276 of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. The principal question of law, and, an important one, that arises for companysideration in Appeal No.
And offence if any for which he companyld be charge sheeted companyld be under Section 5 only.
987 of 1992, as well, filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, affirming the order of the Trial Judge discharging the accused, is if the absence of sanction, by the appropriate authority, under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code in short the Code for prosecuting a retired public servant, vitiates the proceedings.
The Trial Judge by order dated 6th.
986 of 1992 which shall reflect on Appeal No.
123 of 1991.
It was held that the authorisation for institution of prosecution, for offences allegedly companymitted under either Statute, was invalid as even though authorisation was issued, in favour of the Prosecuting Inspector who was the Investigating Officer, but.
Effort was made by the accused to assail the framing of charge, as according to him, on facts, numberoffence under either of the Statutes was made out.
A revision, against this order, was dismissed by the High Court, on 6th June, 1989.
Against this order the accused approached the Division Bench, by what is described as, speaking to the Minutes for clarification of the order passed by the High Court on 3rd/4th April, 1990 as the learned Single Judge who passed the order on 3rd/4th April, 1990 did number appreciate the observations made by the Division Bench, but it was rejected on 24th July 1990 as there was numbersystem of speaking to the Minutes by doing which the order companyld be reviewed in criminal proceedings.
But the accused came across them and obtained their companyies in companyrse of his duty as an officer attached to B.A.R.C. Charge No.
Since the accused was discharged by the Trial Judge, mainly, due to technical defects and the decision was rendered as a preliminary issue on direction of the High Court, suffice it to say that the accused, an ex Naval Captain who achieved number able success in the field of companyputer science and software during the period he was attached with Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, in short B.A.R.C. had voluntarily opted out of service in 1987, was arrested on 30th May, 1988, just, when he was about to board a plane for New York.
Taking out of information obtained in companyrse of employment was thus squarely companyered by Section Whether it was for companymunication or number is number material.
