Fazal Ali, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated April 5, 1974 of the Calcutta High Court by which the order of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh hearing in the light of the directions given by the High Court. The High Court further directed that the Commitment Inquiry held by Mr. R. P. Roy Chowdhury, who was the trial Magistrate. should be held by some other Magistrate.
(2.) The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and the central controversy turns upon the interpretation of S. 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It appears that a complaint was filed on the 20th March 1969 against 38 accused persons under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the Act. The charges against the accused were no doubt very serious and concerned the security of the State, as the accused persons are alleged to have passed on some military secrets to the enemy resulting in serious detriment to the safety and security of our Country. Of the 38 accused persons named in the chargesheet, only 17 were in custody and a commitment inquiry into the charges was held against them by the trial Magistrate.
(3.) During the commitment inquiry the State filed an application under Section 14 of the Act praying that the proceedings be, held in camera and public should be excluded from attending the hearings of the case because the statements made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State. It was also prayed that apart from excluding the public from the hearings of the proceeding the accused should not be allowed to have access to or be given copies of, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Magistrate or those recorded earlier during police investigation. The Magistrate partly allowed the application but permitted the defence lawyer to take copious notes of the statements of witnesses in order to be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses. Subsequently, the Magistrate directed the lawyer to produce his notebook so that the Magistrate may examine if only a summary of the evidence had been taken by the lawyer of the statements had been taken in extenso in which case it would amount to publication and therefore would be barred by Section 14 of the Act. The lawyer of the defence appearing before the Magistrate first agreed to show his notebook but later claimed privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act on the ground that the register in which he had taken down the notes of the evidence also contained certain instructions given to him which amounted to a privileged communication and could not be looked into by the Court. In this view of the matter the Magistrate found himself helpless and proceeded with the Inquiry. As the prosecution was not satisfied with the procedure Adopted by the Magistrate the State filed a revision before the High Court for quashing of the order of the Magistrate in allowing the lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses without impounding the notes comprising the statements of the witnesses taken down in extenso by the lawyer.;