Bombay HC: Is Recording Conversations in a Police Station a Crime under official secrets Act ?

The first and the foremost fact to be noted upon contents of First Information Report as well as statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the entire episode has taken place in Police Station. Police have invoked the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Section 2 (8) of the said Act defines what is “prohibited place”. Police Station is not included in the said definition. Anything done in the police is absolutely not included in Section 3. Under such circumstance, ingredients of the said section are not at all attracted. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

32 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3421 OF 2022

 Subhash Rambhau Athare, Vs   The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:23601-DB

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2024

ORDER : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

Print Page

When provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923 is not violated by whistle blower?

 Though the submissions made by Mr. Sinha's learned counsel on the contents of his application were limited, the oral submissions spread over a larger canvas. It is submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Common Cause and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal have not only committed perjury but are also guilty of contempt of Court and additionally Mr. Prashant Bhushan has violated the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 by placing on record the official notes with regard to the case of the Dardas. We have considered Mr. Sinha's application from all these angles.

 In our opinion, the submissions made by Mr. Vikas Singh in this regard do not deserve acceptance. It is true that this Court had required the Director, CBI to ensure, by its order dated 8th May, 2013 that the secrecy of the inquiries and investigations into the allocation of coal blocks is maintained. However, if somebody accesses documents that ought to be carefully maintained by the CBI, it is difficult to find fault with such a whistle blower particularly when his or her action is in public interest. It is another matter if the whistle blower uses the documents for a purpose that is outrageous or that may damage the public interest.

In that event, it would be permissible for this Court or an appropriate Court to take action against the whistle blower, if he or she is identified. However, the present case is not of any such category. The whistle blower, whoever it is, acted purportedly in public interest by seeking to bring out what he or she believes is an attempt by Mr. Ranjit Sinha to scuttle the investigations into the affairs of the Dardas or others in the Coal Block Allocation case. As mentioned above, we are not considering whether the file notes actually disclose an attempt by Mr. Sinha to scuttle the investigations. All that is of relevance is whether the disclosure by the whistle blower was mala fide or not. We are of the opinion that the disclosures made by the whistle blower were intended to be in public interest.

 In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Mr. Prashant Bhushan or Common Cause or Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal had any intention to mislead this Court in any manner, nor do we agree that they have perjured themselves. The file notes speak for themselves and any interpretation, even an allegedly twisted interpretation said to have been given to them, cannot fall within the realm of perjury.

Common Cause & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

[I.A. No. 13/2014]

[Crl. M.P. No.387/2015]

[Writ Petition (C) No.463/2012]

Dated;14 MAY 2015

Print Page