V.K. Palaniswamy vs State
1986 Latest Caselaw 251 Del

JUDGMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

(1) This is an application by Shri V.K. Palani Swamy son of Shri T.S. Kayrohanandar, Ex-Senior Personal Assistant Ministry of Shipping and Transport for bail in relation to the trial of offeree under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code in Coomar Narayan's case. The allegation in the complaint filed on behalf of the prosecution against ShriV.K. Palaniswamy are contained in paras 78 to 81 of the claimant which are as under : "THAT on the basis of the disclosures including confessional statements of Coomar Narain and Gopalan. V.K. Palani Swamy, Sr. P.A. Ministry of Shipping and Transport, was arrested on February 15, 1985. He admitted, during interrogation, that he is working with Joint Secretary, Shipping, from 1980 onwards. In the second half of 1980, one Murthy. who is an employee of Slm Manaklal Industries Ltd., 16, Hailey Road, visited his office to seer an appointment for his boss, Coomar Narain with the Joint Secretary, Shipping. As the Joint Secretary was busy, he could not give any appointment to Coomar Narain. The same evening. Murthy rang up Palani Swamy and invited him to his office to meet his boss. Coomar Narain. Soon after Murthy came to the office of Palani Swamy, picked him up and took him to 16, Hailey Road. There he was introduced to Coomar Narain and wag offered drinks, but Palani Swamy being a tea-totaller, declined the offer. Over a cup of tea, Coomar Narain enquired about the size of his family, income and other related problems. During the talks. Coomar Narain requested Palani Swamy to give him minutes of the monthly reports of the Hindustan Shipyard, sent to the Cabinet, which are circulated by the Cabinet Secretary to all the Ministries, minutes of Sdfc meetings etc. All these documents were classified. Palani Swamy hesitated a bit but Coomar Narain convinced him that by doing this small work, he would help his family in a big way with money. While Palani Swami was leaving, Coomar Marayan offered him an envelope containing Rs. 200 and asked Murthy to drop him at his residence. After about a couple of weeks, Murthy rang up Palani Swamy and requested him to come to his office in the evening and bring the minutes of the meeting of the Cochin Shipyard. As the minutes had not by then come to It. Secretary, Shipping Palani Swamy waited for 2-3 hours and when the minutes were received, he went to Coomar Narayan's office at 16, Hailey Road after office hours. He met Coomar Narayan there and gave him these papers. After about 20 minutes, Coomar Narayan returned the documents to him and gave Rs. 2000.00 . Thereafter, he was dropped at his residence. After this, every month once or twice, he would visit Coomar Narayan's office at 16 Hailey Road and give him minutes of the periodical meetings of the Cochin Shipyard, Hindustan Shipyard and SDFC. During each visit, he was paid Rs. 200.00 . 79. That Palani Swami further disclosed that this system of handling over documents to Coomar Narayan continued and the latter would give him the money after Photostatting was done. During his visit to 16 Hailey Road, Palani Swamy bad met Sankaran of the President's Secretariat and Gopalan of the P.M.'s Secretariat. On one occasion, Gopalan and Palani Swamy had travelled together from 16, Hailey Road to R.K. Puram. 80. That Palani Swamy further revealed that sometime in early 1983 once Murthy rang him up and told him that he would pick him up at 7 p.m. for dinner. He did not specify the place. He took him to the residence of the Polish Deputy Commercial Attache named Haberka, who was residing in the Polish Embassy Apartments. They bad dinner with Haberka, who asked him if he could get the minutes of the meeting wherein the technical documentation for construction of bulk carriers by Hindustan Shipyard was discussed. Palani Swamy agreed to try. Haberka paid him Rs. 200.00 through Murthy, along with a small bottle of perfume and a pair of trousers. On one occasion, Lokesh Sharma had also taken him to Hotel Hyatt Regency, where he had dinner with one K.K. Narain, an executive of Maneklal & Co. Bombay. 81. That Palani Swamy had desired to make a confessional statement before the Magistrate and accordingly his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Shri G.P. Tbareja, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on February 27, 1983. In his statement before the Magistrate, Palani Swamy made a clean chest of his involvement and admitted having passed on classified documents pertaining to the Shipping Development Fund Committee meetings and those pertaining to the Cochin and Hindustan Shipyards to Coomar Naryan and also to Murthy at the behest of Coomar Narayan. since 1979 in lieu of payments of various sums of money. He also admitted having been taken to Haberka, Polish Commercial Attache on one occasion and having been asked to supply sensitive information by Haberka, which he ultimately did not do."

(2) The evidence against the accused relates to confessional statement of Coomar Narayan, Confessional statement of the accused himself and the oral statements of Lokesh Sharma and Murthy.

(3) The argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the case of the petitioner falls in second part of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act and the secrets so far as the present applicant is concerned docs not relate to matters of defense or otherwise in relation to Navy, Air force and Armed force, and thus, the sentence for him is maximum 3 years. It is submitted that the applicant is already under arrest since 15th February, 1985.

(4) Mr. Handa submits that the charge framed against the applicant purports to be under first part of Section 3(l) of the Official Secrets Act and there force the applicant should not be released on bail. It will be noticed that it Is a omnibus charge covering everything possible under Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act against all the accused. There are no separate charges against individual accused which may Indicate the extent of the participation in the conspiracy or the offence. However, whatever may be the charges, there has to be some material and the only material which is relied upon by the prosecution Is what I mentioned earlier.

(5) It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that because the information relates to Shipyard, therefore, it falls under first part of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act. This submission is liable to rejection for simple reason that first part of Section 3(l) of the Official Secrets Act has to be in relation to the defense i e. in relation to either Armed Force, Navy Army or Air Force. Merely passing official secrets of any dockyard, which has nothing to do with Army, Navy or Air force, will prima-facie not bring the information in relation thereto under the first part of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act.

(6) However, the documents relied upon relates to Shipping Development Fund Committee meeting,

(7) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant also brings to my notice a letter dated 16th February, 1985 where it is opined that the said minutes of that Committee did not relate to any matters of defense and relate merely to adversely effecting commercial interest of the State. If the trial court for Its convenience makes a omnibus charge grouping all the accused persons without individually scribing the illegal acts of individual accused, it does not mean that the court should decline bail in view of sentence prescribed without considering the nature of case and/or material against the accused and such other relevant considerations.

(8) Mr. Handa submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State v. Captain fagjit Singh, Air 1962 Sc 233 no bail at all can be granted in Official Secrets Act cases.

(9) It will be noticed that the case of the Supreme Court related to offences under first part of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act which was common case of both the parties. The Judgment in the case of Captain Jagjit Singh (supra) specifically notices that the case relates to Military affairs of the Government.

(10) In fact the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Captain Jagjit Singh l(supra) has been explained by E.S. Venkataramiah, J. in the case of The State (through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch), Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill, 1984, Criminal Law Journal 1211. Jn para 9 of the judgment, E.S. Venkataramiah, J. observed as under ; "THE offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with which the respondent is charged relates to military affairs and it is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years. This Court in the State v. Jagjit Singh has indicated that the Court should exercise a greater degree of care in enlarging on bail an accused who is charged with the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act when it relates to military affairs. I have also gone through the decisions of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State {Delhi Administration) (1978) 2 Scr 258 : (AIR 1978 Sc 179) and Gudikanti Narasimhula v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh which deal with the principles governing the grant of bail. It may be mentioned here that in the last of the above cases, the accused had been acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court on appeal. On a consideration of the above three decisions, I am of the view that the Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations."

(11) It is, therefore, clear that there is distinction in cases where military affairs are involved and the cases in which other affairs are involved. The cases of military affairs arc of very serious nature and normally no bail should be granted in such cases during trial.

(12) After going through the confessional statement of Coomar Narayan or the confessional statement of the petitioner or the documents concerned connected with the petitioner's case or the oral statements of Lokesh Sharma and Murthy, prima-facie, there is no material material to bring the case of the accused in the first part of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act and the case prima-facie falls under second part of Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner is already in Jail since 15th February, 1985 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded within three years of his arrest. In the circumstances the petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10.000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court on the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without permission of the trial court.

(13) I am constrained to give detailed reasons while passing the orders for bail in view of the insistence of learned counsel for the State that bit submissions be noted and dealt with.

(14) Nothing stated herein be construed as form of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.