The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki Menezes observed that a police station is not included as a prohibited place as defined under the Official Secrets Act, and hence, shooting a video inside a police station cannot be an offence. (Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra)
Facts of the case
The applicant, i.e. the original accused filed the present application before the Court seeking quashing of First Information Report and consequent case pending before the Competent Court at Wardha, in pursuance of filing of charge-sheet in the matter.
The applicant in the present case as per FIR, has been accused of offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Pursuant to investigation, charge- sheet was filed.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that even if the contents of the FIR and the material placed before the Court below along with charge-sheet are to be perused and accepted as it is, there are no ingredients of offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act made out in the present case. On this basis, it is submitted that the present application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
The learned APP on the other hand, submitted that this Court may peruse the material placed on record to arrive at a conclusion as to whether offence under the aforesaid provision is made out or not. Moreover the judgment of the Court in the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another (dated 23/03/2021) and other were brought to the notice of the Court, to assist this Court for deciding the present application.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench taking note of the facts of the case and perusing of the material on record noted, " it shows that the complainant in the present case is a Police Officer, who has alleged that during certain proceedings being undertaken in the Police Station, the applicant secretly video recorded the proceedings on his mobile, thereby committing offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
The material placed on record indicated that there was a dispute between the applicant and his wife on one hand and owner of adjacent agricultural field on the other, leading to a situation where a non-cognizable report was registered against the owner of the adjacent agricultural field, at the behest of the applicant. The Police Officer informed the applicant and his wife that on the basis of a cross complaint being placed before the Police by the owner of the adjacent agricultural field, there was every likelihood of registration of offence against the applicant and his wife. In this backdrop, the rival parties were present in the Police Station and it is alleged that attempts were being made to settle the inter se dispute between the parties. It is at this stage that, according to the complainant-Police Officer, the applicant made the aforesaid video recording, thereby committing the said offence."
The Court took note of section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, which provides penalties for spying, which specifically states that a person would face penalty for spying if he commits an act as specified in sub-section (1) thereof observed, "In the context of the above quoted provision, the definition of ‘prohibited place’ as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act is relevant. It is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include a Police Station as one of the places or establishments, which could be included in the definition ‘prohibited place’. Considering the aforesaid provisions and proceeding on the basis of the statements made by witnesses during the course of investigation, in the backdrop of the allegation made by the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that none of the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the applicant. Therefore, this would be a fit case to allow the present application.
The bench further took note of the judgment in the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another, in a similar situation, when video recording was made on the mobile phone, in the context of the offences punishable under sections 353 and 186 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Moreover the Court found that there was no material to invoke sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act. This Court is of the opinion that the allegations in the said case were far more serious than those made in the present case against the applicant.
The bench taking note of the above, allowed the petitioners terms of prayer clause-1, which reads as follows.
“1. Exercise the inherent powers vested by virtue of section- 482 of Cr.P.C. and thereby quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing Crime no.-219/2018 dated-08/03/2018 for the offences punishable under Section – 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and consequent R.C.C. No.- 875/2019 thereto pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha.”
Accordingly, the application was disposed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
