SHARMA, J. - (1.) THESE four criminal revision-petitions Nos. 314 of 1973, 319 of 1973, 320 of 1973 and 322 of 1973, are taken up for hearing and decision together as a common question of law is involved in all of them and are disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) ALL these applications in revision arise out of separate trials being held in each case in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The trials are in respect of offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It appears that in each of the 4 cases cognizance was taken on complaints which were made after police investigation under Chapter XIV of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigations no charge-sheets under sec. 173, Cr. P. C were filed, because the condition required to take cognizance of an offence under the Act is that there must be a complaint made by order of, or under authority from the appropriate Government, or some officer empowered by such Government, in this behalf. The accused in all these four cases claimed copies of documents referred to in sec. 173, Cr P. C. as of right and the Sessions Judge trying the cases directed the prosecution to furnish the copies of all the documents to the accused persons as prayed for. Aggrieved by these orders directing copies to be furnished to the accused, the State has moved this Court by way of these four applications-in-revision. I have heard at length Mr. P. N. Datt learned counsel for the petitioners in Revision Petition No. 314 of 1973, Moti Singh and Dr. S. K. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The non-petitioners in the other three cases have not appeared in this Court in spite of the fact that notices of dated, time and place at which the revision-petitions will be heard were served on them. The common question that arises for determination in all these criminal revisions is whether the accused persons have a right to the grant of copies of the documents referred to in sec. 173 of the old Criminal Procedure Code even in cases initiated on complaints but in which there were previous investigations by the police under Chapter XIV of the Code and the accused had not been challaned. Dr. S. K. Tiwari appearing on behalf of the State has strenuously urged before me that the accused persons are not entitled to copies of statements recorded during the course of investigation in cases which are not started on a police report and that the accused being tried by the court on the basis of complaint, no right does accrue to them to get copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution. Dr. Tiwari has relied upon an authority of the Calcutta High Court Ramendra Singh vs. Mohit Choudhary (l), in support of his above proposition where in the following observations have been made: - "the prosecution is under the Official Secrets Act and it is unlikely that the Legislature would provide for a camera trial and at the same time provide for giving copies of all documents u/s. 173 to the accused. This strikes at the root of secrecy and goes counter to the provisions of trial in camera and this is why the Legislature purposely used the word 'complaint' and provided for a special procedure regarding cognisance. This view finds support from the provisions of sec. 14 of the Act providing for camera trial. The Official Secrets Act provides for a special procedure of complaint and if it was upon a cornplaint by a person authorised under the Act, cognizance was taken under sec. 190 (l) (a) and not under 190 (l) (b ). The procedure for trial would, therefore, be u/s. 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under sec. 251-A. In respect' of prosecution under sec. 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no compulsory provision for giving copies of documents referred to u/s 173 and the opposite parties are not, therefore, entitled to copies " He has contended on the strength of this authority that the non-potitioners cannot ask for copies of all the documents as referred to in Sec. 173, Cr. P. C. Mr. P. N. Datt learned counsel for the non petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 314 of 1973, on the other hand, contended that the non petitioners have a right to the grant of copies in cases in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a complaint but in which there was previous investigation by the police under Chapter XIV of the Code. He referred in particular to the following rulings in support of his above contention : - Chittaranjan Das vs. State of West Bengal (2), Supdt. & Remembrancer, Legal Affairs vs. Vimla Dassi (3), Noor Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (4), Purshottam vs. State of Kutch (5), Pravin Chandra vs. State of A. P. (6), to In re, Veshappa (7), Naresh vs. State of Maharashtra (8 ).
(3.) 1 have perused the authorities cited above and considered the rival contentions. It will not be out of place to mention that in all the four cases complaints were filed u/s. 3 read with S. 9 of the Act in the Court of the District Magistrate, Jaipur, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was authorised by the State Government to do so. The District Magistrate, Jaipur, took cognizance upon the complaints under S. 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and committed the non-petitioners to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for trial under sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution to furnish copies of all the documents, relied upon by the prosecution, to the non-petitioners on the basis of the observations of this Court made by Hon'ble Gattanij. , as he then was, in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 847 of 1972 State vs. Moti Singh. The observations made in the last para while cancelling the bail of Moti Singh are as follows : - "it was urged by Mr. Dutta counsel for the respondent that documents u/s 173, Cr. P. C. even have not yet been supplied to him, if that be so the Sessions Judge will see that it is done as soon as possible. " In view of the said order of this Court, it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, committed an arror in directing the prosecution in each case to furnish copies of the statements and documents, on which it relied, to the non-petitioners. What is contended before me by Dr. S. K. Tiwari is that special procedure is provided in the Act itself for trial of persons accused of offences under the Act and so the accused cannot claim copies of documents referred to in S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as of right. In support of his above contention, he invited my attention to S. 14 of the Act, which provides that upon an application made by the prosecution in the course of a trial for an offence under this Act, the court can hold trials in camera or a part of trial in camera or prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings, if in his opinion the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State. According to him, in view of these provisions, if the prosecution is directed to furnish copies of secret documents to the accused persons in such cases, there is every likelihood that the disclosure of secrets may adversely affect the security of the State. The above contention has no force, because, no such application has been made by the prosecution to the Sessions Judge for holding trial or part of a trial in Camera or to prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings. The prosecution cannot be permitted to deny to the accussed the benefit of prior knowledge of the evidence that may be produced against him at the trial merely on the ground that a power has been given to the trial court to hold the trial or part of the trial in camera or to prohibit excessive publication of a part of its proceedings on the application filed by the prosecution in a case under the Act. Another contention put forward by Dr. S. K. Tiwari is that in cases started on a police report only, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that the documents referred to in S. 173, Cr. P. C. have been furnished to the accused and that in cases started on the basis of the complaint the accused cannot get copies of such documents including copies of statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161 (3), Cr. P. C. in the course of police investigation. The above contention also has no substance, because it has been held by this Court in Bakhtawar Singh vs. The State (9), that the accused has a right to ask for the copy of statement of a person who has been examined by the police during the course of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure if that person is produced as a witness for the prosecution at the trial and that it is immaterial in such cases whether the accused has started upon the police report or initiated on a complaint. A similar view has been taken in Dattari Das vs. Kulamani (10) and State of M. P. vs. Ramadhin (11), and also in Supdt. & Remembrancer, Legal Affairs vs. Vimla Dassi (supra ). Consequently, I feel inclined to hold that the non-petitioners have a right to be furnished with copies of documents in these cases also wherein cognizance is taken on the basis of a complaint, but where investigation has been held by the police under Chapter XIV of the Code for the purpose of collecting evidence for the complaint that is required to be made subsequently. But it should be made clear that the right of the accused to get copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution is subject to certain restrictions contained in sub-sec. (5) of sec. 173 of the old Criminal Procedure Code itself. Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 173, Cr. P. C. provides that if the police officer thinks that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 161 Cr. P. C. during the course of investigations is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry or its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall exclude such part from the copy of the statement that may be furnished to the accused, and, in such a case he is required to make a report stating his reasons for excluding such part. Upon such report the Magistrate however, may, if he thinks fit, direct the part so excluded to be furnished to the accused. These provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of sec. 173, Cr. P. C. have been introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure to safeguard the public interests. ;