N.C.TALUKDAR, J. - (1.) THESE two Rules are at the instance of the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, on behalf of the State of West Bengal, directed respectively against two orders dated 12 -8 -1974 and 23 -8 -1974, passed by Sri N. G. Chou -dhury, Judge, 9th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1974, arising out of S. P. P. S./S. B. casa No. 93 dated 26 -4 -1973 under Sections 120B/437/451/511. Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Official Secrete Act, 1923 and under Rule l}l -4 -(II) of the Port Bye Law. The two Rules were directed to be heard together and are taken up together for disposal, for the sake of convenience.
(2.) THE Rules arise in the backdrop of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the facts leading on to the same are rather chequered, being highlighted by several applications preferred at different stage* before the High Court by both the parties. The first Rule, being criminal Revision No. 911 of 1974, is directed against the Order dated the 23rd August, 1974, while the other Rule in Criminal Revision No. 912 of 1974, is directed against the other Order dated 12th August, 1974. S. P. P. S./S. B. case No: 93 dated 26 -4 -1973 under Sections 120 -B/437/451/511, Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 6 and 9 o the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Rule 111 -(4) -(II) of the Port Bye Law was started against the accused -opposite parties and several others, on a complaint lodged by one Md. Maniruddin, Shed Writer, Night -in -Charge, King George's Dock Extension. During the investigation, the accused -opposite parties and the co -accused, David Ming Hsuan Chans alias Halaku and Joseph alias Yusuf, were arrested on different dates from different places. Two other accused, viz., Bela Harcos (Junior) alias Bill and Dr. Kuo Hsuan Chang are said to be still absconding. The arrested persons were duly produced in Court and remanded to custody. After the conclusion of the investigation, the prosecution obtained the necessary sanction from the Central Government and filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 14 -3 -1974 as provided for under Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 against the accused -opposite parties as well as the co -accused under various sections already referred to. The proceedings were held in camera before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on the prayer of the prosecution made under Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, in order to avoid tha publication of official secrets and ultimately the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by his order dated the 10th July, 1974 committed the accused persons to the City Sessions Court,. Calcutta under the provisions of the new Code (Act 2 of 1974). The case beinR Sessions Case no. 67 of 1974, was thereafter transferred to the file of Sri N. G. Choudhury, Judge, 9th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta for trial and a Prayer was made before him on 31 -7 -1974, under Section 14 of the Official Secrete Act, 1923, for holding the proceedings in camera by excluding the public and the learned Judge allowed the said prayer by his Order dated the 6th August, 1974. ?
(3.) THE Rule relating to the order -allowing certified copy is taken up for consideration in the first instance. On. prayers made by the prosecution in its application filed on 31 -7 -74 for holding the trial in camera by excluding the members of the public, the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Sessions court, by his order dated 6 -8 -74 allowed the trial to be held ostis apertis. It was contended on behalf of th;