Delhi High Court
Rajeev Sharma vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 4 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1573
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 01st December, 2020
Delivered on : 04th December, 2020
+ CRL.REV.P. 363/2020
RAJEEV SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Adish C. Aggarwala, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Aditya Singh,
Mr.Akshat Goel, Mr.Amish
Aggarwala, Mr.Kuldeep Jauhari,
Mr.Rajat Bhatia, Mr.Karan Ahuja,
and Mr.Anubhav Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI .... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Cousnel
(Crl), Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC
Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP, Ms.Jyoti
Babbar, Mr.Chaitnaya Gosain,
Advocates for the State with SI
Bhagwan Singh, Spl. Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)
1. Heard.
2. Before adverting to the issue involved, let me state the brief facts as
alleged in the petition:-
a) a secret input from Indian intelligence Agency was received that
Mr. Rajeev Sharma R/o SG-2, St. Xavier Apartment, Pitampura, New
Delhi, is having links with Foreign Intelligence Officers and he has
been receiving funds from his handler through illegal means &
Western Union Money Transfers platform, for conveying sensitive
information (having bearing on National Security & Foreign
relations), to his handler based abroad, through electronic means. A
case Vide FIR No.230/2020, dated 13.09.2020, u/s 3/4/5 Official
Secrets Act, PS Special Cell, Delhi was registered and investigation
was taken up;
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
b) During the investigation, Rajeev Sharma s/o Lt Sh.Rattan Lal
Sharma r/o SG-2, Pitampura, New Delhi, was arrested on
14.09.2020 from Main Mathura Road, near Pillar No 172, Near
Patel Nagar Metro Station, the arrest of accused Rajeev Sharma all
the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India were followed and
the information of his was passed on to his wife Mrs.PratimaVyas,
though mobile phone call. mobile phone of accused Rajeev Sharma
was also seized. Further during the search of the house of the
accused Rajeev Sharma, several articles and some
sensitive/confidential documents related to Indian Defence
department were recovered at the instance accused Rajeev Sharma.
The same were seized;
c) During further investigation, it was revealed that accused
Rajeev Sharma has been indulged in procurement
secret/confidential/sensitive documents/material information and
rather conveying the same to his handlers (Chinese Intelligence
officers) based in china. In lieu of that he was getting
remuneration/money through illegal means i.e. hawala
transactions/funds routed through shell companies being
run/operated by Chinese nationals, in Delhi, India;.
d) During further investigation it was that accused Rajeev Sharma
was in contact with these officers namely Michael, Xou and George
through emails platforms i.e. Telegram, Whatsapp etc. Accused
Rajeev Sharma was conveying the information to these Chinese
intelligence Officers and was receiving the illegal funds through
illegal means/shell companies being operated in Mahipalpur, Delhi
by the Chinese nationals on the direction of Chinese intelligence
officers;
e) Letter was moved to Military Intelligence, to verify and report
regarding the recovered during search of house of accused Rajeev
Sharma. in this regard from Director General Military Intelligence
has As per the report-The documents are CLASSIF! vide Para 9 of
Classification & handling of classified documents (CHCD)-2001
issued vide Military Intelligence -11 letter Number A/38020/MI-11
dated July 2001, and the person i.e. accused Rajeev Sharma was
having the unauthorized possession of the said documents. Further it
was also mentioned by the DGMI that any unauthorized disclosure
of content of these documents could be expected to cause damage to
National Security or could be prejudicial to the National Interests or
would embarrass the Government in its functioning and the contents
contained in documents are directly or indirectly connected with
security matters country;
3. Accused Rajeev Sharma on 14.11,2020 had moved a petition under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C in the Court of learned CMM/Ld Duty Magistrate to
release him, on the ground that 60 days period having expired since his
arrest and charge sheet not been filed by the State, thus, relying upon the
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
judgment of Supreme Court of India, in the case of "Rakesh Kumar Paul
vs. State of Assam". The said petition was dismissed by the Court saying
the limit of 60 days period has not yet expired;
4. The State had filed a revision before learned ASJ, Patiala House
Court, on 15.11.2020 against order dated 14.11.2020 of Ld. CMM and the
same is pending for hearing for dated 07.01.2021. In the meantime, on
15.11.2020, accused Rajeev Sharma filed a petition under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. (on similar grounds) in the court of Duty MM, Patiala House Court,
wherein Ld Duty MM after perusing the matter dismissed the said petition
on 16.11.2020 and ordered the time period of filing the charge sheet in this
offence would be 90 days;
5. The learned duty MM has mentioned following paras of the
judgment of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs The State of Assam in her order, as
under:-
f) Para 22 : Keeping in view the above observation, the object of
the official Secret Act should also be kept in mind which is National
Security, where the actions which involve helping an enemy State
against India are strongly condemned. Further, the offences pun
under the act are akin to the offences in chapter VI of IPC for the
offences against the State whereby the offences like waging war,
collecting arms, sedition etc. are strictly punishable with death or
imprisonment for life or imprisonment extendable to 10 years. A
harmonious interpretation and balance is required at this stage
between the punishment of the said offences under IPC and offences
under Official Secrets Act since the decision of the Apex Court in
Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), is silent upon the aspect of number of
days of custody of the accused where there is no minimum sentence
provided for any office. National Security is of paramount
importance and therefore, the Legislature has enacted this Special
Act providing strict punishment of imprisonment extendable to 14
years for offence under Section 3 of the said Act;
g) Para 23: Considering the nature investigation required in such
serious offences and the above observations, this court has no
hesitation in holding that the right of default bail has not accrued in
favour of the accused as the punishment under 3 of the Official
Secrets Act will squarely be covered by Section 167(a)(i) where the
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
maximum period of custody will be 90 days and not 60 days copy of
order of Ld Duty MM, is enclosed.
h) Para 27 It is true that an to an offence punishable with a
sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term that may extend to 10 years is a serious offence entailing
Intensive and para extensive Investigation. It would therefore appear
that given the seriousness of the offence the extended period of 90
days should be available to the Investigating officer such cases in
other words the period of investigation should be able to the gravity
of the offence understandably so. This could be contrasted with an
offence where the maximum punishment under IPC or any other
penal statue is (say) 7 years, the offence being not serious or enough
to warrant and extended period of 90 days of investigation a possible
view and indeed CrPC makes a distinction in the period of
investigation for the purpose of default bail depending on the gravity
of the offence. Nevertheless to avoid uncertainty of ambiguity in
interpretation the law was enacted with two compartments. Offence
punishable with imprisonment of not less than an and at in one
compartment equating them with imprisonment of life. This category
of offence undoubtedly for deeper integration since the minimum
punishment is pretty stiff. All other offences have been placed in a
separate compartment, since they provide for lesser minimum
sentence, even though the um n could be more than 10 years
imprisonment. While such offence might also require deeper
investigation (since the maximum is quite high) they have been kept
in a different compartment because of the lower minimum imposable
by the sentencing Court, and thereby reducing the period of
incarceration during investigations which must be concluded
expeditiously. The cut off, whether one like it or not, is based n the
wisdom of the legislature and must be respected.:
6. Against the said order dated 16.11.2020 of learned MM, Patiala
House Courts, accused Rajeev Sharma has moved the present petition.
7. The dispute involves interpretation of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
8. Section 167(2)(a)(i)-(ii) Cr.P.C runs as under:
"167 Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-
four hours.
(1)xxxxx
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under
this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the
case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in
such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding
fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case
or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary,
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having
such jurisdiction.
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused
person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing
so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as
the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is
prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the
provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;"
9. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the State that Rakesh
Kumar Paul (supra) takes care of only the situation where minimum
punishment is prescribed but what would happen if there is no minimum
punishment prescribed. Thus the main argument of the learned Standing
Counsel for the State is since the offence is punishable with a maximum of
fourteen years viz. a period beyond ten years and without prescribing any
minimum punishment, Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. shall be applicable and
chargesheet can be filed within 90 days and thus petitioner shall not be
entitled to default bail.
10. The crux of his arguments is where there is no minimum punishment
prescribed and the maximum punishment is more than 10 years then the
chargesheet can be filed beyond 60 days but before 90 days from the date
of arrest.
11. The Court thus is required to see if in the present case the
chargesheet is to be filed within 90 days or was required to be filed within
60 days from the date of arrest of the accused.
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the State referred to Vignesh vs.
State of Tamil Nadu in CRL.O.P.(MD)2263/2012 decided on 30.03.2012
wherein the decision of Delhi High Court reported in 2001 CLJ 2023 was
relied upon. The Court opined the expression "imprisonment for a term of
not less than 10 years" used in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sub Section (2)
of Section 167 includes imprisonment for a term of 10 years as well as
imprisonment of more than 10 years. In other words, clause (i) of proviso
(a) to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 will be applicable where the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term
of 10 years or more. The crucial test is whether the offence is one for which
the punishment of imprisonment for a terms of 10 years or more can be
awarded. It is immaterial that the Court may have also the discretion to
award the punishment for a term of less than 10 years. In the case of
particular offence even though the Court may have a discretion to award
the punishment of imprisonment for a term less than 10 years the above
clause (i) will apply, if the accused can be punished with imprisonment for
a term of 10 years.
13. In this case the Court held that since the offence under Section 3(1),
first part of Official Secrets Act, 1923, being punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to 14 years was covered by clause (i) of proviso (a) to
Sub Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and consequently, the applicant
were not entitled to bail as of right since the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. had been filed within 90 days of their arrest.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the State also refers to Omprakash
vs. State of Delhi 121 (2005) DLT 686 which also declared the same law.
15. However in Vinu vs. State of Kerala and Others, BAIL
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
APPLN.8049/2011 decided on 08.12.2011 the Court held in cases where
offence is punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more the accused
can be detained upto 90 days. In this context, the expression not less than
would mean imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover
only those offences for which the punishment could be imprisonment for a
clear period of 10 years or more.
16. A bare perusal of the Vinu (supra) above would say the expression
not less than 10 years would cover the offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for 10 years or more but per Vignesh (supra) and Omprakash
(supra) it may even cover the discretion to award the punishment of
imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years.
17. I'm afraid the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for
the State does not hold good in view of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of
Mysore, SLP(C) 2009/2017 where also the Supreme Court was concerned
with interpretation of the words "imprisonment for a term of not less than
10 years" appearing in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sub Section (2) of
Section 167 Cr.P.C. 1973, as amended in 1978. The Supreme Court went in
great detail analyzing the purpose of amendment since 1898 which
contained Section 167 laying down the procedure to be followed in the
event the investigation to the offence is not completed within 24 hours. The
Court observed that the legislative expectation was the investigation would
ordinarily be completed within 24 hours. Section 167 Cr.P.C. was thus
enacted with the recommended time limit and again regardless of the nature
of offence of the punishment.
18. The Supreme Court went on to say that in 1978 a need was felt to
amend Section 167 Cr.P.C. by not only extending the period for completing
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
investigation but also relating that period to the offence. Therefore a shift
was proposed to grant an aggregate period of 90 days for completing the
investigation in cases relating to offences punishable to death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than 10 years or more,
as stated in the Notes on clauses accompanying the Statement of Objects
and Reasons dated 09.05.1978 for amending the Statute. The Court said
that in its opinion the use of words "or more" gives a clear indication that
the period of 90 days was relatable to an offence punishable with minimum
imprisonment for a period of not less than 10 years, if not more. The words
or more were deleted when Section 167 Cr.P.C. was enacted, perhaps felt
to be superfluous in the context of the words "not less than".
19. This gives an answer to the issues raised in this petition that the
offence must have the imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more
only then Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. would be applicable. This view also
find favour in Rajeev Choudhary vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2001(5)SCC 34
wherein it was held the words "not less than" would mean that the
imprisonment should be of 10 years or more and would cover only those
cases for which the punishment and imprisonment would be for a clear
period of 10 years or more.
20. In Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) the Court observed that the
undoubtedly the legislature can bind the sentencing Court while laying
down the minimum sentence (not less than) and it can also lay down the
maximum sentence. If the minimum is laid down the sentencing Judge has
no option but to give a sentence period not less than that sentence provided
for. Therefore the words "not less than" occurring in clause (i) of proviso
(a) to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. must be given their natural
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
and obvious meaning which is to say, not below the minimum threshold
and in case of Section 167 Cr.P.C. these words must relate to the offence
punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 10 years.
21. Here I would also refer to para 84 of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of
Assam 2017 (15) SCC 67, wherein the conclusions are noted, more
specifically paras 84.2 and 84.3 would clinch the issue. The said paras are:
"84.2. Section 167(2)(a)(i)of the Code is applicable only in cases
where the accused is charged with (a) offences punishable with
death and any lower sentence; (b) offences punishable with life
imprisonment and any lower sentence; and (c) offences punishable
with minimum sentence of 10 years.
84.3. In all cases where the minimum sentence is less than 10
years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment
then Section 167(2)(a)(ii) will apply and the accused will be entitled
to grant of "default bail" after 60 days in case charge-sheet is not
filed."
22. Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) was relied upon in M.Ravindran vs. The
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Crl.A.No.699/2020 decided on 26.10.2020 to say where the offence is
punishable with minimum sentence of 10 years, the period of challan shall
be 90 days.
23. Thus under the Official Secret Acts for which the petitioner is being
tried, though entail punishment which may extend to 14 years but the
Section does not talk of minimum period of sentence and thus does not pass
the test of clear period of 10 years or more, per Rajeev Choudhary (supra)
and Rakesh Paul (supra) and as such the period of challan in this case
would be 60 days and thus the impugned order passed by the learned MM
being illegal is set aside and the petition is allowed. The petitioner is thus
entitled to default bail; the challan having not been filed within 60 days.
24. The applicant herein is thus admitted on bail on his executing a
CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAPIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36
personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Jail
Superintendent/Duty MM. The surety of the like amount shall be furnished
by the petitioner within a week once the learned Trial Court resuming its
normal functioning. The petitioner is directed to provide his contact
number/address to the SHO concerned as also he shall keep open his
location app in his mobile at all time and shall not leave the NCR of Delhi
without seeking permission of the learned Trial Court.
25. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending
application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.
26. Copy of this order be sent electronically to the learned Trial Court /
Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2020 DU CRL.REV.P.363/2020 Page 10 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAPIL SHARMA Signing Date:04.12.2020 12:36