The Delhi High Court expounded that certain special enactments, including the Officials Secrets Act, 1923, mandated specific procedure for initiating legal proceedings. These enactments stipulated that complaints must be filed by a designated or appropriate authority and necessitated a prior police investigation. Only after fulfilling these prerequisites could the court take cognizance of the complaint.
Brief Facts:
A complaint was lodged by B. Bhattacharjee, Deputy Secretary of the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, with the CBI.
The complaint sought legal action against Major General (retired) V.K. Singh under the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “Secrets Act”), based on which an FIR was registered against the petitioner on September 20, 2007. The allegations in the FIR accused the Petitioner of disclosing classified information through the publication of his book titled "India's External Intelligence - Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)."
Following an application by the CBI, search warrants were issued, allowing CBI officers to search the petitioner's premises. The search took place, and a compliance report was filed on September 24, 2007.
The Central Government thereafter, authorised an officer of the CBI, to file a complaint in the appropriate Court under Section 13(3) of the Secrets Act. Consequently, on April 9, 2008, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and Vivek Garg under Section 13 of the Secrets Act. On the same day, an application was made under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), 1973, to stay the complaint filed by the CBI until the charge sheet was filed. The final report of the investigation including Sections 3 and 5 of the Secrets Act and Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), was submitted on April 11, 2008, along with a request to keep the classified documents sealed.
The Trial Court combined the charge sheet and the complaint case against the Petitioner. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Secrets Act and of the charge sheet for offences under Section 409 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
Hence, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR and charge sheet.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Petitioner wrote the book intending to bring attention to two significant issues: the lack of accountability and corruption in the Research and Analysis Wing (hereinafter referred to as “RAW”), the country's external intelligence agency.
Further, it was contended that the case, being a complaint case, should be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, and an investigation by the CBI or police was impermissible. Section 4(2) of the CrPC was referred to, which states that cases involving special statutes should be conducted according to the provisions of that particular act. In this case, the Secrets Act was the special act, and under Section 13(3) of the Secrets Act, a Magistrate can take cognizance only upon a complaint filed by an authorised person. It was emphasised that the CMM had combined the charge sheet and the complaint without proper examination of the complainant or witnesses, thus violating statutory provisions for complaint cases triable by the Court of Sessions.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the book titled "India's External Intelligence-Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing," written by the petitioner, revealed classified information such as the secret recommendations of the Group of Ministers' Recommendation of Internal Security in 2001, details of the "Vision 2000" future technology upgradation project of RAW, and specific technical aspects of the VSAT project and UHF/VHF projects. The book also disclosed the locations of RAW stations in India. Despite being aware of the classified nature of the contents, the publisher, Vivek Garg, still published the book. It was contended that even if the petitioner intended to expose illegalities, corruption, indiscipline, and nepotism within RAW, there was no need to disclose classified information.
Additionally, it was submitted that at the time of registering the First Information Report, reliable information in the form of a letter from the Cabinet Secretariat was received, which prima facie established an offence under Section 5 of the Secrets Act. Thus, the FIR was appropriately registered, and ample evidence was collected during the investigation, leading to a complaint and a report under Section 173 of CrPC being filed in court.
Finally, the it was contended that the investigation conducted by the CBI or police was permissible. It was asserted that although the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and cognizance could be taken only on a complaint filed by an authorised person as per Section 13(3) of the Secrets Act, compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC was not required.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analysed and noted section 13(3) of the Secrets Act required a complaint authorised by the appropriate government or an empowered officer to initiate legal proceedings for offences under the Act. Offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Secrets Act were tried by a Special Court equal to or higher than a Court of Sessions.
Additionally, the High Court opined that section 210 of the CrPC addressed situations where a complaint and an investigation were initiated for the same offence. Certain special enactments, including the Secrets Act, mandated a police investigation due to the cognizable nature of the offence and specified that the Court could only take cognizance of the complaint from a designated or appropriate authority. Section 210 of the CrPC provided the procedure in such cases. Thus, the requirement to record statements under Section 202 of the CrPC was exempted in cases where a public servant filed the complaint and an investigation was already underway, following the procedure outlined in Section 210 of the CrPC.
The Bench analysed the Petitioner's case in light of section 5 of the Secrets Act. The provision stipulates that an officer who fails to take reasonable care of or endangers the safety of classified information shall be guilty of an offence. The Petitioner claimed to expose corruption and malpractices in the book, arguing that certain portions highlighted shortcomings, lack of professionalism, accountability, malpractices, and corruption.
However, the Respondent's concern was regarding the disclosure of officer names, locations, and Group of Ministers (hereinafter referred to as “GOM”) recommendations. The Court held that matters affecting national security could not be decided by the judiciary.
The Petitioner reproduced the GOM recommendations verbatim, which were deleted from publication. The Petitioner relied on other books and articles mentioning the GOM recommendations but failed to reproduce them exactly. It was noted that the Petitioner himself considered similar revelations by other authors as offences under the Secrets Act and filed a complaint, but it was set aside as it was not filed by the competent authority.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Major General V.K. Singh (Retd.) v Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application Criminal No. 1604 of 2008
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Dr. B.K.Subarao, Mr. Chander M. Maini & Mr. B.K. Wadhwa, Mr. Mayank Maini
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr.Anupam S.Sharma, Special P.P., Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Ms.Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Batra
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
