Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Sanjit Kumar Paul on 20 July, 2010
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 41/09
State Versus 1. Sanjit Kumar Paul
S/o Sh. Khitish Chander Paul
R/O H.No. 555/16, Nai Basti
Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Bijendra Singh Panwar
S/o Ranjit Singh
R/o H.No. O30, Sriniwaspuri
New Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 231/99
Police Station : Sriniwas Puri
Under Section : 3/9 Official Secrets Act &
140/171/474 IPC r/w 120 B IPC
Judgment reserved on : 01.07.10
Judgment pronounced on : 20.07.10
JUDGMENT
Case History
1. Accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and Bijender Singh Panwar have been prosecuted for offences punishable U/s 3/9 Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OS Act) & 140/171/474 IPC r/w 120 B IPC.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:2:
2. The investigations of the case commenced as secret information was received that one Sanjit Kumar Paul in conspiracy with Pakistan Intelligence officers in Nepal for a purpose prejudicial to the safety, security or interest of India was collecting and obtaining documents/ information relating to defence matters of India, the disclosure of which to an unauthorized person was likely to adversely affect the security, sovereignty and integrity of India. The informer also informed that the said person used to pass on documents by fax from Rama Krishna Travels, I Block market, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi to Kathmandu, Nepal.
3. On 22.04.99, further information was received that Sanjit Kumar Paul would go to above said shop to fax documents / information at about 8PM on that day. On this information, Inspector Ved Prakash organized a raiding party comprising of himself, SI Bir Bahadur Chand, SI Krishan Lal, SI Risal Singh and SI Chand Singh and they proceeded to I Block market, Sriniwaspuri along with informer. A Nakabandi was made near Rama Krishna Travels, I Block Market, Sriniwaspuri. At about 8:30 PM a person carrying khaki envelop in his right hand came and entered the above said shop. He was identified by the informer as Sanjit Kumar Paul who was talking to the person at the counter. Inspector Ved Prakash, immediately reached at the counter and apprehended him. Before searching the khaki envelop which he was SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:3:carrying, Sh. Prem Chander Jha man at the counter was joined in the raiding party. The envelop was searched which was found to contain two wireless messages marked 'Confidential', two typed letters marked 'Top Secret', agreement made between Russia and India on 23rd at 16 hours, three meetings held in South Block on different dates and one hand written sheet. All these documents were seized after obtaining signatures of the witnesses. Rukka was prepared for registration of FIR for offence punishable U/s 3/9 Official Secrets Act read with 120 B IPC.
4. It is further the prosecution case that during personal search of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul among other articles, one identity card of Ministry of Defence in his name valid up to 20.11.2000 was recovered. On investigation the said Identity card was found to be fake and forged. His disclosure statement was recorded, on the basis of which accused Bijender Singh Panwar was arrested on 23.04.99 from his house. House search of coaccused Bijender Singh Panwar was conducted and 24 wireless messages marked 'Restricted/ Secret', two hand written notes having information of Indian Navy and Air Force were recovered which were taken into possession. During further investigations the office premises of both the accused persons at second floor, 65 E, Hari Nagar Ashram were searched and more wireless messages, other documents and rubber stamps were recovered. In addition one telephone directory containing telephone number of staff branch I, staff branch II, personnel SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:4:branch, other naval authorities and miscellaneous authorities was also recovered from the office occupied by accused Sanjit Kumar Paul. All these documents were sealed. The residential premises of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was also searched from where more wireless messages, documents and rubber stamps were recovered.
5. The prosecution story further runs, the recovered documents were sent to Director Air Force Intelligence, Director Naval Intelligence and Chief Security officer, Ministry of Defence vide separate letter dated 20.05.99, 12.07.99 to obtain opinion on the nature of the documents. The documents sent to the Director Air Force Intelligence and Chief Security Officer, Ministry of Defence were opined as "fake". Whereas the documents sent to Director Naval Intelligence were opined; the telephone directory recovered from the office premises of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul, an official document, indirectly useful to enemy country and contained information indirectly connected with defence matters of the country. The information contained in all other documents if disclosed to an unauthorized person could not adversely affect the safety, security and interest of State and could not be useful to an enemy country and those were not related to defence matters of the country.
6. Investigations further revealed that accused persons had been receiving money in cash and through bank drafts from Kathmandu. The SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:5:bank official of SBI Overseas branch, Bara Khamba Road had handed over 11 demand drafts in the name of accused Bijender Singh Panwar from 05.05.98 to 04.04.99 worth Rs. 1,14,500/ issued by Nepal, SBI Bank Ltd., Kathmandu. The Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Janakpuri revealed that on 04.04.99 a bank draft issued by Nepal, SBI Bank Ltd., Kathmandu for Rs.24,000/ was deposited in the joint account in the name of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and his wife on 08.04.99. Investigations also revealed accused persons had introduced a number of persons to Pakistan Intelligence officials. Accordingly, on finding sufficient evidence against both the accused persons for having committed offence punishable U/s 3/9 Official Secrets Act & 140/171/474 IPC r/w 120 B IPC the charge sheet was laid.
7. After the case was committed for trial to the Sessions, Charge vide orders dated 17.03.08 was framed against both the accused persons. They were charged for offence punishable U/s 120B IPC, Section 3 (1)
(c) Part I and Section 9 of Official Secrets Act & r/w 120 B IPC. In addition, accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was also charged for offences punishable U/s 140/171/474 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:6:Evidence
8. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses in order to substantiate the charge against the accused.
9. PW1 Sh. Prem Chand is an independent witness, to the seizure of documents and arrest of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul from Rama Krishna STD shop. Although, the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he did not make any statement to the police. He admitted during crossexamination held by Learned APP that the documents Ex.PW1/1 to 11 which were seized vide seizure Ex.PW1/B were bearing his signatures. But the witness showed his ignorance about the contents of the documents.
10. PW2 Mohd. Juned is also an independent witness of the prosecution case regarding seizure of the documents of the instance of both the accused persons from their shops at 2nd Floor of premises no. E 65, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. This witness partially turned hostile and was cross examined by the Learned Addl. PP after seeking permission from the Court. He denied the suggestion that accused Bijender Singh Panwar was present with the police at the time of search of his office. In crossexamination, on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he had signed the recovered documents and seizure memo while sitting in his office.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:7:
11. PW3 Sh. Charan Singh is an independent witness of the prosecution case qua the seizure of documents from the house of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul at 555/16, Nai Basti, Gurgaon, Haryana. The witness deposed that a brief case had already been taken out by the police from under the bed when he had reached at his house from his place of work and the police had shown him the brief case which contained some documents and 45 stamps. The witness was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP with permission of the Court as he was found not to be supporting the case. Although during crossexamination the witness admitted that the police had made the search in his presence during which the brief case was recovered. But again in cross examination on behalf of the accused persons he admitted the suggestion on behalf of the accused persons that when he reached, the police had already recovered the brief case.
12. PW6 Vinod Kumar is witness to the recovery of documents from the house of accused Bijender. The witness deposed that he was owner of the house no. O30 Sriniwaspuri. Accused Bijender was residing at first floor of the house on rent while he was on the ground floor. On 22/23.04.99, at night police came to his house and he and his father were asked to join the proceedings. Police had seized about 25 wireless messages and some documents from his room. The witness proved the seizure memo of these documents as Ex.PW6/B and the SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:8:personal search memo of the accused as Ex.PW6/A. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons the witness deposed that first the police had gone to the room of accused Bijender and after 3040 minutes they approached him when they were going back they informed him that they were taking accused Bijender Singh Panwar and showed them the seized articles stating that the same were recovered from the room of the accused.
13. PW4 Sh. Ramesh Madan, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Rajasthan, deposed about having received 11 demand drafts for payment issued from Kathmandu branch of the bank in the name of Sh. Bijender Singh Panwar w.e.f. 05.05.98 to 04.04.99 totaling to Rs. 1,14,500/. He had handed over the attested true copies of the demand drafts Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A11 to the police which were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW4/B. The testimony of the witness is unchallenged.
14. PW5 Sh. Dinesh Gupta deposed that his mother Savitri Devi was the owner of the premises no. 65E, Hari Nagar Ashram and one room of the premises were let out to accused Bijender Singh Panwar in January 1999 and another room was let out to accused Sanjit Kumar Paul on the asking of accused Bijender Singh Panwar on same terms and conditions. In the year 1999, when the police had come to the said SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:9:premises, the respective rooms were in the possession of the accused persons. The testimony of this witness is also unchallenged.
15. PW7 Sh. Anoop Chopra had produced the photocopy of the passenger manifest list Ex.PW7/A of flight no. IC751 dated 26.10.98. He deposed that the original record was destroyed as they do no retain the record beyond 8 years. The witness identified the signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B as of Sh. Sita Ram Kapoor, the then Station Manager who had supplied the photocopy of passenger manifest list Ex.P2 & PY to the police. The witness was cross examined on behalf of accused but nothing much could be brought forth.
16. PW8 SI Suresh Pratap Singh, Local Intelligence Unit deposed that on 16.06.99, while he was posted as Check Post Officer Bawatpur Airport Varanasi, on the request of police, he had handed over disembarkation card mark PW8/B dated 26.10.98 of Sh. R. Chand of flight no. IC 751 which was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW8/A. During crossexamination of the witness nothing much could be brought forth.
17. PW9 Constable Satya Pal Singh was the motorcycle rider who had delivered the copy of the FIR to Senior police officials and at police Head Quarters.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:10:
18. PW10 HC Des Raj deposed that on 06.03.99 while he was posted at FRRO Administration branch IGI Airport Inspector Madanjit and one Sub Inspector came to him and showed him departure and arrival card of passenger Bijender Singh Panwar and one other person which are Ex.PW10/1 to 10/4. The said card was in relation to flight no. RA218 dated 19.02.99 and the arrival flight no. RA 205 dated 24.02.99. The cards were seized vide Ex.PW10/A. In cross examination the witness deposed that they did not certify the identy of the person for whom the cards Ex.PW10/1 to 4 were issued.
19. PW11 Sh. N. R. Sharma Manager (Administration) Royal Nepal Airlines deposed that on the request of Investigating Officer, he gave details relating to Passenger Manifest of RA26, mode of payment of tickets, name of person who issued the tickets and the name of the person to whom the tickets were issued vide letter Ex.PW11/B. He had attested the photocopy of the tickets of passenger manifest which are Ex.PW11/1 to 3. In crossexamination the witness could not tell that who actually traveled on the above tickets.
20. HC Jaiveer examined as PW12 had registered the FIR of the case while he was posted as Duty Office on 22.04.99 in PS Sriniwas Puri. He has proved the FIR of the case as Ex.PW3/A. In cross examination the witness deposed that no other document was attached with the rukka when it was produced before him.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:11:
21. PW13 Dr. Radhey Shyam Sharma could not produce the disembarkation card dated 26.10.98 as the records pertaining to same could not be traced.
22. PW14 Retd. SI Rishal Singh and PW16 SI Chand Singh, PW18 Retd. ACP Ved Prakash, PW25 Retd. SI Kishan Lal are the members of the raiding party and PW27 Retd. Inspector Madanjit Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. Their statements shall be adverted to subsequently in detail.
23. PW15 Sh. B.R. Dhiman had granted sanction order Ex.PW15/A to prosecute the accused persons while he was posted as under Secretary, Internal Security, Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2000. The covering letter vide which the sanction order was granted has been proved by the witness as Ex.PW15/B. The witness deposed that he had granted the permission on the basis of documents of the case referred to him.
24. PW17 Smt. Rajinder Kaur has proved the letter written by Sh. S. K. Raghuvanshi OSD Home II DCP. The letter is Ex.PW17/A and the testimony of the witness is unchallenged.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:12:
25. PW19 Constable Jaiveer has deposed that on 25.05.99 he was posted in FRRO (Administration), Record Room Branch. He had handed over the photocopy of the passenger manifest list and embarkation card of flight RA206 Royal Nepal Delhi to Kathmandu for 25.10.98 to Inspector Madanjit Singh which was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW19/A which witness also deposed that one passenger manifest list and two embarkation are mark A1 to A3. The originals of which were destroyed. The witness was crossexamined but nothing could be brought forth in his crossexamination.
26. PW20 Wing Commander B. K. Rath had verified the identity card in the name of Sanjit Paul and he deposed that no such card had been issued by Air Force to person named Sanjit Kumar. The witness proved the report given by him in this respect as Ex.PW20/A. In cross examination the witness deposed that he did not prepare the report in the presence of Inspector Madanjit Singh. After the identity card was produced before him he verified it from the records and handed over the report of the person who was waiting to collect the report.
27. PW21 Sh. R. K. Saini deposed that he had handed over a computerized print out Ex.PW21/A i.e. the record of flight no. RA206 for 25.10.98 to the Investigating Officer. He stated that the endorsement on the document was made by him while supplying the information. In SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:13:crossexamination the witness deposed that he did not prepare the list Ex.PW21/A.
28. PW22 Sh. Karuna Karan is another independent witness of recovery of documents from the office situated at 2nd Floor of premises bearing no. E65, Hari Nagar Ashram. The witness deposed that in the year 1999, two three persons being CBI officials came to his office and called him in the office opposite to his office as they wanted to show some documents to him. He accompanied with them to that office. They showed him some books but he could not understand anything about those books. They had asked him to put his signatures on some documents which he had refused. The witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, he was got declared hostile and was cross examined by Learned APP. In crossexamination, the witness could not depose where the office opposite to his office was of accused persons. He could not tell he name of those persons brought by the police whether it was Bijender Singh Panwar and Sanjit Kumar Paul. Even in crossexamination the witness did not support the case of the prosecution.
29. PW23 Sh. S. C. Joshi, Manager Syndicate bank had produced a duplicate bank pass book of account No. 10420 in the name of Sanjit Kumar Paul and Purbi Paul. He deposed that as per entries in the pass SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:14:book one draft no. 058465 dated 04.04.99 for Rs. 24,000/ issued by State Bank of India Ltd., Nepal was presented on 08.04.99 and discounted amount was credited in this account. The attested copy of the pass book is Ex.PW23/A. He proved the letter issued by the then Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Janakpuri as Ex.PW23/B. The witness was cross examined but nothing much could be brought forth.
30. PW24 Sh. Lalit Kumar, Retd. Commander, Dy. Director for Chief of Naval Staff deposed that he had forwarded the opinion on the documents received from Inspector Madanjit Singh as enclosure to Naval Head Quarters letter NI 06/0151 dated 21.06.94. He proved the forwarding letter written by him as Ex.PW24/A.
31. PW26 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Joint Commissioner of Police had filed a complaint Ex.PW26/A while he was posted as DCP Special Branch, Delhi Police after he received the sanction Ex.PW15/A from Ministry of Home Affairs. The testimony of the witness is unchallenged.
32. PW28 Sh. Swaminath Assistant Director Pass Section Security Office, had produced the records pertaining to cancellation of identity cards received in the department. The witness was shown the identity card Ex.PX in the name of Sanjit Kumar Paul after seeing which he stated that it was a fake identity card and was not issued by their SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:15:department. The witness had placed one identity card Ex.PY on the record and submitted that such identity cards were being issued to defence personnels in the year 1998. In crossexamination, the witness deposed that identity card was not issued his signatures. He also deposed that he had not verified from the records whether Ex.PX was issued in the name of Sanjit Kumar Paul or not.
33. PW29 Sh. Kartik Shanker, Commander, Indian Navy deposed that he was deputed by Principal Director (Naval Signals) for this case. As per record Capt. K. Jalandhar had died and he identified the signatures of Capt. K. Jalandhar on the report Ex.PW29/K. In cross examination the witness deposed that he had not signed any documents qua this case and the report Ex.PW29/A was not prepared in his presence.
34. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have denied the case of prosecution and claimed to be innocent. The accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Both the accused persons did not led any evidence in their defence. Contentions
35. On behalf of the State, Learned APP submitted that both the accused persons participated in a deep rooted conspiracy in pursuance of SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:16:which they had been sending secret documents / information of the defence to the agents of Pakistan in Nepal. Regarding this conspiracy a secret information was received and accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was arrested red handed with original defence documents. On interrogation, the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and on its basis, coaccused Bijender Singh Panwar was arrested. Thereafter both these accused persons led the police party to their residence as well as offices and got recovered more incriminating documents and other material.
36. It was submitted that even the independent witnesses were joined in the raid by the police. They have lend support to the prosecution story by identifying their signatures on the recovered documents and their seizure memos. The police witnesses have consistently proved the entire recovery made at the instance of the accused persons. The said conspiracy gets proved as same type of documents were recovered from the possession of both the accused persons and they both had gone to Nepal. The embarkation card has not been disputed by the accused persons. The prosecution has also proved that money from Nepal was being credited in the bank accounts of accused persons for which they have not been able to give any explanation.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:17:
37. The offices of both the accused persons were located in the same building on the same floor. Moreover, they had retired from defence services. Thus, all these go to show that both the accused persons were well connected with each other and had conspired to disclose secret defence documents and information to the foreign States. In addition, accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was carrying a fake identity card of defence department. Thus, the entire evidence adduced on record proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In support of the contentions Learned Addl. PP relied upon the reported judgment Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Jaspal Singh 2003 (10) SCC 586.
38. On behalf of accused persons, it was urged that none of the independent prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of alleged documents from the possession of the accused persons from their office or residence have supported the prosecution case. Once the recovery becomes doubtful then even if the prosecution is able to show that the seizure memos of the documents bear their signatures is not of any use to the prosecution. It was submitted that the prosecution has not produced any original records to prove that the accused persons had been visiting Nepal or any other country and how their visits, if any, established the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the testimony of the police witnesses who were the members of the raiding party is also contradictory on material facts. Therefore, the prosecution case is completely shattered and demolished.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:18:Findings
39. Section 3 of Official Secrets Act provides penalties for spying. Section 3(1)(c) envisages : If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety of interests of the State obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to any enemy; or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States.
40. Section 3(2) raises a presumption when the requirements of Section 3(1)(c) are fulfilled that articles enumerated therein were obtained or collected by the person for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State.
41. Before considering the evidence on record that whether recovered documents at the instance of accused persons fall within the scope of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act, let us first scan the proceedings before filing of the charge sheet and complaint on 04.04.00. Prior to this, on 30.11.99, the Investigating Officer Inspector Madanjit Singh had filed a cancellation report on the basis of opinion received from three SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:19:different departments on the documents recovered in this case. It is observed that vide letter No.20170/12/AI(S)/ PC8 dated 06.07.99, 12.07.99, 21.06.99, 22.06.99, 23.06.99, 24.06.99, 30.06.99, Wing Commander, Deputy Director of Intelligence (Security) opined that the documents appear to be "fake". This opinion was in response to letter No.108/CE/SB dated 20.05.99 addressed to Air Force Intelligence. Similarly, Lieutenant Colonel S. Thannavan, Security Officer, in response to letter No.145/CE/SB dated 12.07.99 had opined vide letter NO.839/Esp/Security dated 16.07.99 that "the documents have been forged and the information contained in them had nothing to do with actuals." In response to letter NO.109/CE/SB dated 20.05.99, addressed to Captain K. Jalender and Captain R. Sawhney, their opinion had been forwarded vide letter NO.NI06/0151 dated 21.06.99, stating that telephone directory recovered from accused Sanjit Kumar Paul could be useful to enemy country. All other documents were opined as containing information disclosure of which to an unauthorized person could not affect the security, safety or sovereignty of India, they were not useful to enemy country and did not relate to the defence matters of the country.
42. Thereafter proposal for obtaining government sanction as required U/s 13(3) of Official Secrets Act was sent to appropriate government which was not given. Even the recovery of telephone directory was stated to be insufficient evidence to establish charge as it SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:20:was not a classified document. Thus, the report for sending the case as untraced was filed by the Investigating Officer in the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM). Vide order dated 09.12.99, Learned CMM did not accept this report and ordered for clarifications on certain aspects. While doing so, except for report U/s 173 Cr.P.C and proceedings of the Court, the entire record was returned to the Investigating Officer.
43. Thereafter on obtaining an opinion on the identity card recovered from the possession of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul during his personal search and further investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C along with sanction U/s 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act for prosecution of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 3/9 Official Secrets Act, 140/171/474 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was filed. But the letter No.108/CE/SB dated 20.05.99, addressed to Air Force Intelligence and letter No.145/CE/SB dated 12.07.99 addressed to Chief Security Officer, Ministry of Defence were not filed on record. Even the opinion given by Wing Commander S.P. Sinha, Deputy Director of Intelligence Security Air and by Lieutenant Colonel S. Thannavan, Security Officer, Ministry of Defence vide various letters were also not placed on record. These letters also do not find any mention in the list of documents filed along with report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. In the charge sheet, it is only mentioned that these letters had opined the documents as "fake".
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:21:
44. In the complaint Ex.PW26/A, filed by DCP, Special Branch along with charge sheet, it is mentioned that Wing Commander S.P. Sinha through his letters of various dates had opined the documents in question seemingly appeared to be fake. On further clarifications, vide letter dated 26.07.99, he opined that "those documents have not been originated by the units as mentioned in the documents. Hence, the documents appear to be fake". This opinion is stated to be in response to letter No.108/CE/SB dated 20.05.99. But in the complaint, there is no mention about the letter No.145/CE/SB dated 12.07.99, addressed to Chief Security Officer, Ministry of Defence and opinion given by Lieutenant Colonel S. Thannavan vide letter No.839/ESP/Security dated 16.07.99.
45. Although a huge number of documents are alleged to have been recovered at the instance of both the accused persons from their houses, offices and from accused Sanjit Kumar Paul at the time of his arrest have been placed on record. Bu the opinion of the concerned authorities on these documents as to their nature and purpose is not on record except for opinion of Captain K. Jalender and Captain R.S. Sawhney. Their opinion is qua eight documents which consists of a telephone directory recovered from the office of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and seven wireless messages, recovered from the house of accused Bijender Singh Panwar. The opinion on these documents was sought SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:22:vide letter No.109/CE/SE dated 20.05.99 Ex.PW27/A. The opinion has been forwarded by PW24 Sh. Lalit Kumar vide letter No.NI06/0151 which is Ex.PW24/A. The opinion rendered by Captain K. Jalender has been proved by PW29 Sh. Kartik Shankar. However, the investigations are also silent that which all documents were sent to Air Force Intelligence and to Ministry of Defence for opinion.
46. To consider the nature of the documents i.e telephone directory Ex.PW2/B and seven wireless messages Ex.PW2/A12 to Ex.PW2/A18, the opinion given on these documents by Captain K. Jalender and Captain R. Sawhney becomes relevant. PW29 Sh. Kartik Shankar, Commander, Indian Navey has deposed that Captain K. Jalender, JDNS (Operation) who had prepared the said opinion is reported to have died. PW29 proved the handwriting and signatures of Captain K. Jalender as having come across numerous official correspondence during the course of his official duty. He proved this opinion as Ex.PW29/A.
47. PW24 Sh. Lalit Kumar proved his forwarding letter as Ex.PW24/A along with which the documents and opinion were given by Captain K. Jalender and Captain R.S. Sawhney appended. He deposed that the documents appear to same which he had forwarded to Inspector Madanjit Singh but due to lapse of time, he could say with certainty SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:23:about it. However, he could not identify the handwriting on Ex.PW29/A and Mark PW24/Y on which the opinion was given by Captain K. Jalender and Captain R.S. Sawhney.
48. Inspector Madanjit Singh examined as PW27 deposed that the opinion received vide letter dated Ex.PW24/A are Ex.PW29/A and Mark PW24/Y. This part of his testimony is unchallenged. Thus, from the evidence, it emerges that vide letter Ex.PW27/A, Inspector Madanjit Singh had sent one telephone directory Ex.PW2/B recovered from office of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and seven wireless messages DTG No. (1). 231020 (2). 231230 (3). 231005 (4). 231215 (5). 232100 (6). 222230 and (7). 232130, one sheet each recovered from the residence of accused Bijender Singh Panwar which are Ex.PW2/A12 to Ex.PW2/A 18 for seeking opinion qua these documents from Director, Naval Intelligence.
49. As per report Ex.PW29/A, the telephone directory is opined to as "nonclassified" document, official in nature. The information contained in it if disclosed to unauthorized person is opined not to be prejudicial to safety, security and interest of the State. Further, the information contained in it can indirectly be useful to enemy country and it is indirectly connected with defence matters of the country. The wireless messages DTG 232100 and 231005, in this report are opined to SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:24:be "unclassified" official document. But both these do not contain information if disclosed to unauthorized person as prejudicial to safety, security and interest of the State or directly/ indirectly useful to enemy country or directly/ indirectly related to defence matters of the country. Although the prosecution has failed to prove the handwriting of Captain R. Sawhney who is stated to have given opinion qua remaining five wireless messages vide Mark PW24/Y. Still as per the opinion of Captain R. Sawhney in the wireless message DTG 231020, "the format in error no internal leak possible", in the wireless message DTC 231230, "the format is erroneous, no internal leak possible" and for the wireless message DTG 231215, it is opined "makes no operational sense". The opinion for wireless message DTG 222230, is "no operational intelligence can be geared" and lastly, for wireless message DTG 232130, it is mentioned "no operational intelligence can be obtained". The wireless messages Ex.PW2/A12 to Ex.PW2/A18 show that as if these are in codes which have not been deciphered. Moreover, it has not been shown that whether the information contained in them is directly/ indirectly useful to enemy or is likely to affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States.
50. On the other hand, the telephone directory Ex.PW2/B though terms as "nonclassified" document but is opined to be indirectly useful to enemy country. Moreover, it deals with Chief of Naval Staff and Vice SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:25:Chief of Naval Staff, Staff BranchI, Staff BranchII, Personal Branch, Material Branch, other Naval Authorities, Miscellaneous Authorities, Coast Guard Headquarters, Army Headquarters and Air Headquarters. It contains the telephone numbers and residential & official addresses of persons of various different departments of Armed Forces. Learned APP, during the course of arguments, had strenuously urged that as held in the judgment Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh (Supra) that "Telephone Directory" is covered U/s 3(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : When so much of solid proof was available as to his possession, a restricted document prohibited for the general use of others and the information contained therein is not to be communicated directly or indirectly to the press or to any person not holding any official position in the Government for the reason that it contained the names, number of field formations and units of each individual officer, they being also sensitive information from the defence point of view of the country, no further proof is required and his possession sufficiently substantiates that he or somebody on his behalf obtained or collected it for him. The mode of consideration and method of proof in a case like this, cannot be on the lines of a crime under the provisions of IPC inasmuch as subsection (2) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act engraft the statutory presumptions to be SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:26:drawn from the facts and that this would make all the difference in the nature of consideration required in respect of offences committed under the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
51. Even though in that case, the telephone directory was a "Restricted" document which is not so in this case. But by labelling a document as "classified" and "nonclassified" depicts only the nature of a document. Even if a document is labelled as "nonclassified" does not mean that it loses its sensitivity and becomes a public document. As opined in Ex.PW29/A, even being a "nonclassified" document, it could be indirectly useful to enemy. Thus, the telephone directory Ex.PW2/B falls within the scope of Section 3(1)(c).
52. Section 3(2) of the Act, raises a presumption that the document was obtained or collected for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of State. The said presumption can be gathered from circumstances of the case, conduct and known character of the accused. First of all, in the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Sanjit Kumar Paul has merely denied the possession of telephone directory Ex.PW2/B. He has not offered any explanation that how he came in possession of the telephone directory.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:27:
53. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove the recovery of telephone directory Ex.PW2/A along with other documents from the office room of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul. PW5 Sh. Dinesh Gupta has testified that premises No.E65, Hari Nagar Ashram was in the name of his mother Smt. Savitri Devi. One room was let out to accused Sanjit Kumar Paul in the year 1999. When the police came in the year 1999, the respective rooms were in possession of accused persons. The testimony of this witness is unchallenged. The accused has not denied in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C that office at premises E65, 2nd Floor was not his office or in his possession.
54. It was vociferously argued by Learned Defence Counsel that once the independent witness disowns the recovery as effected in his presence then his admission of his signatures on the memos does not get established. The said argument of the Learned Defence Counsel lacks complete force. Truly the recovery of documents at the instance of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul in the presence of PW2 does not get established but it proves that documents and telephone directory were recovered on 24.04.99. PW2 has deposed that on the same day, he had put his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A as well as on the documents collectively Ex.PW2/B. At the time of taking his signatures, the police officials had also obtained the signatures of Sh. Karuna Karan on the same. The recovery of these documents stand proved through the SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:28:testimony of PW27 who has deposed that after seeking the police remand of both the accused persons, they took the police party to their offices situated at E65, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi, but the offices were found locked and it was learnt that the keys were at the residence of accused Bijender Singh Panwar. After bringing the keys, the offices were opened and searched. From the office of accused Bijender Singh Panwar, various documents and rubber seals were recovered which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and signatures of the witnesses i.e PW2 Mohd. Junaid and PW22 Sh. Karuna Karan were obtained. Thereafter the search of office of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was conducted and various documents along with telephone directory were recovered. All the documents were got signed by the witnesses and the telephone directly was got signed on the first and last page. The telephone directory Ex.PW2/B bears the signatures of both PW2 & PW22. PW2 has admitted his signatures on the documents as well as seizure memo. Although PW22 had turned hostile to the prosecution case, nonetheless, he has admitted that in the year 1999, he was working as a Clerk with Dynamic Sales Service and some CBI Officials had come to him and had asked him to accompany them to an office opposite to his office. He has also admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW2/C although he has denied his signatures on the other documents.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:29:
55. Unfortunately, the fourth witness to recovery of these documents, SI B.B. Chand is stated to have expired. In the judgment Sama Alana Abdullah vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1996 Supreme Court 569, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are police witnesses and were members of the raiding party. Their evidence receives corroboration from the Panchnama. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW27 Inspector Madanjit as no reason has been shown for which he would falsely implicate the accused persons in this case. Moreover, the fact that various documents have been placed on record which the prosecution itself is claiming to be fake, thus, it does not appeal to reason that the Investigating Officer would plant such documents on accused persons to falsely implicate in this case.
56. Same is the fate of other recoveries made at the instance of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and accused Bijender Singh Panwar from their house and office premises. The prosecution has also alleged that accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was arrested on 22.04.99 from the shop R ama Krishna Travels, Sriniwas Puri with a khaki envelope containing various documents seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He was trying to pass the information/ documents to Nepal through fax the same as he had been doing in the past. PW18, Retd. ACP Ved Prakash deposed that SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:30:while accused Sanjit Kumar Paul was busy in conversation with PW1, Sh. Prem Chand who was present at the counter of the shop, the accused was apprehended and khaki envelope containing documents were seized from him. PW1 Prem Chand though has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and on the recovered documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11. But he has deposed that police had taken him to Police Headquarter at ITO and had obtained his signatures on some papers there. He was not aware about the contents of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11. He also deposed that he had not seen accused Sanjit Kumar Paul on that day but he had come to his shop once or twice for making telephone call. He denied that he had made statement Mark X to the police. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sanjit Kumar Paul had taken documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 to fax the same to Nepal or that accused Bijender Singh Panwar had been doing so in past from the same shop. PW1 has categorically deposed that he had not seen accused Bijender Singh Panwar earlier. Prosecution has also failed to prove the nature and purpose of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11. Same is fate of recovery of documents made from the house of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The independent witness PW3 Sh. Charan Singh has deposed that the recovery of the said documents was not made in his presence and when he had returned to his house, police had already recovered the briefcase containing documents and he was not aware SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:31:about the contents of the documents on which his signatures were obtained. The police witnesses qua the said recovery are SI Bir Bahadur Chand who has expired and PW27 Investigating Officer Inspector Madanjit Singh remains the sole recovery witness of the recovery of the documents.
57. As far as the recovery of documents from the house of accused Bijender Singh Panwar is concerned, independent witness Sh. Banarsi Lal to the recovery had expired. The other independent witness PW6 Sh. Vinod Kumar has deposed that while going back, the police officers approached him and told him that they were taking accused Bijender Singh Panwar and also showed the seized articles and told him that same were recovered from the room of the accused. The police had obtained his signatures and signatures of his father on Ex.PW6/A and on the next day, both these documents were already written when the police came to his house. The police witnesses PW14 SI Rishal Singh and PW27 Investigating Officer Inspector Madanjit Singh have supported this recovery. Thus, even if the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution that the recoveries of the documents were made in their presence, same is not fatal to the prosecution case as it is proved from the evidence of police witnesses whose evidence is cogent and reliable. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it emerges that various documents and rubber seals were recovered at the instance of both the accused persons.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:32:
58. The recoveries of documents made at the instance of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul are in the form of various wireless messages and other documents concerning Armed Forces. Even though these documents have been opined to be "fake" but the same raises a question that why the accused was keeping such kind of documents. The accused has failed to assign any reason for being in possession of these documents. Moreover, PW23 Sh. S.C. Joshi, Manager, Syndicate Bank has deposed that as per an entry made in the passbook of a joint bank account no.10420 in the name of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul and Purbi Paul, a demand draft dated 04.04.99, issued by Nepal State Bank of India for Rs.24,000/ was presented on 08.04.99 which was discounted by the bank and a sum of Rs.23,951/ was credited to this account after deducting bank charges of Rs.49/. The copy of the passbook has been proved by the witness as Ex.PW23/A. Although the witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons but his testimony could not be shaken on the above deposed facts. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted about the payment of Rs.24000/ but has stated that it was related to his business transaction and was made by his customer and has nothing to do with this case. However, accused did not lead any evidence to prove this defence raised by him. Accused Sanjit Kumar Paul has also failed to assign any reason that how he obtained this demand draft. Thus, from the circumstances of the case, conduct of the accused, it is established that he was in conscious SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:33:possession of telephone directory Ex.PW2/B and he has failed to assign any reason for keeping this telephone directory.
59. On the other hand, though the prosecution has proved a number of recoveries at the instance of accused Bijender Singh Panwar but the prosecution has failed to establish that the same falls within the scope of Section 3(1)(c) of Act. As all the documents are stated to be fake and the opinion qua seven wireless messages also takes them out of the purview of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act.
60. The prosecution has also alleged that both the accused persons had conspired along with their associates to commit theft of documents and information, related to military affairs of the government or official secret codes which they knew would be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy and the disclosure of which was likely to effect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of State and friendly relations with Foreign States. To establish this conspiracy, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW1 to show that both the accused persons even prior to arrest of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul on 22.04.99 used to fax various documents and information to Nepal. However, PW1 Sh. Prem Chand Jha, a sole witness to this conspiracy has not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he had seen accused Sanjit Kumar Paul as he had come once or twice at the SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:34:shop for making telephone call but he had not seen accused Bijender Singh Panwar earlier. The witness also denied that he had made statement Mark X or Mark Y to the police.
61. To further establish the conspiracy, the prosecution hjas alleged that both the accused persons had travelled to Nepal and were receiving money from there. The prosecution has not been able to show that accused Sanjit Kumar Paul had ever travelled to Nepal. To prove that accused Bijender Singh Panwar had gone to Nepal by flight no. IC 75 on 26.10.98 with one Ramesh Chand, the prosecution has relied upon a passengers manifest list of the said date, the embarkment card of said Ramesh Chand, departure & arrival card of both these passengers. PW7 Sh. Anoop Chand, PW8 Sh. Suresh Pratap Singh, PW10 HC Desraj, PW11 Sh. N.R. Sharma, PW13 Dr. Radhey Shyam, PW19 Constable Jaiveer Singh and PW21 Sh. R.K. Saini have been examined as witnesses to these documents. However, the prosecution has failed to produce the original records and also did not lead secondary evidence by producing the original orders to prove that the original records qua the travel of accused Bijender Singh Panwar with Ramesh Chand on 26.10.98 to Nepal. Even the best witness, Ramesh Chand was not produced in the witness box. He is not cited as a witness or as an accused in the charge sheet. The Learned APP though argued that both the accused persons had their offices adjacent to each other and SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:35:documents of similar nature were recovered from them shows that they had been conspiring. But this argument does not seem to be impressive in absence of other evidence of conspiracy not established by the prosecution.
62. The next question which requires determination is the recovery of a fake identity card of Ministry of Defence from the personal search of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul. It was argued on behalf of the accused Sanjit Kumar Paul that the prosecution has failed to establish that the said forgery was committed by the accused and not even the possession of this identity card has been proved as PW1 in whose presence it was recovered has not supported the recovery. PW1 Prem Chand Jha has admitted his signatures on personal search memo Ex.PW1/D of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul, vide which various things were seized. The witness has not been crossexamined qua this fact. The personal search memo has also been proved by PW16 SI Chand Singh. He was also not crossexamined qua the recovery. SI B.B. Chand, another witness to this recovery has expired.
63. PW20 Wing Commander V.K. Rath has deposed that he had received an identity card in original in the name of Sanjit Paul on 07.03.03 for verification from Inspector Madanjit Singh. He verified from the record and found that no identity card had been issued by Air SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:36:Force to person named Sanjit Kumar. Discrepancies were found in the signatures of Group Captain, appearing on the identity card which did not carry with any of the Group Captains working in the Unit and rubber stamp, affixed on the identity card also does not belong to the Unit. The witness has proved his detailed as Ex.PW20/A. In crossexamination, the said testimony of the witness could not be shaken.
64. PW28 Sh. Swaminath had produced the summoned record of the identity cards which were issued to defence personnel in the year 1998. the identity card in the name of accused Sanjit Kumar Paul on judicial record Ex.PX was shown to the witness who stated that it is fake identity card and not issued by their department. He deposed that in the year 1998, the identity cards, in the nature Ex.PY (sample placed on record) were being issued. Nothing much could be brought from the crossexamination of this witness.
65. A perusal of the identity card Ex.PX and the sample identity card Ex.PY shows a glaring difference in both. On the face of it, Ex.PX does not in any manner confirm to Ex.PY. Moreover, accused Sanjit Kumar Paul is stated to have retired from Air Force Services in the year 1992 but he has failed to provide an explanation that how he possessed the identity card Ex.PX bearing his photograph on 22.04.99. Thus, the prosecution has been able to show that the identity card is fake.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:37:
66. The accused Sanjit Kumar Paul has been charged for offence punishable U/s 474 IPC but the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had forged any document as provided U/s 466 or 467 of IPC. Section 466 IPC deals with forgery of record of Court or of public registers etc. Whereas Section 467 deals with forgery of valuable security, will etc. It is not the case of the prosecution that the identity card Ex.PX was prepared by a public servant which was forged by the accused. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 474 IPC have not been fulfilled. Nonetheless, the accused was found in possession of a forged identity card which has been proved by the prosecution. The said identity card had been recovered from his personal search and being a retired person from Air Force, he knew about the genuine identity cards, accordingly, this shows that the accused Sanjit Kumar Paul knew and had reason to believe that the identity card was forged. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the lesser offence punishable U/s 471 IPC. Moreover, being a retired person, he was found carrying the identity card, resembling to an identity card of Warrant Officer, thus, he has committed an offence U/s 140 IPC. As the offence is made U/s 140 IPC, therefore, the prosecution is not further required to prove the offence punishable U/s 171 IPC. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons were attempting to commit or abeting a commission of offence under Official Secrets Act, so as to establish the ingredients of Section 9 of the Act.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:38:
67. To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable U/s 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act, 1923, U/s 471 IPC and U/s 140 IPC against accused Sanjit Kumar Paul. He is convicted for the said offences. But the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the offences punishable U/s 9 of Official Secrets Act, U/s 120B IPC and U/s 171 IPC against accused Sanjit Kumar Paul. He is acquitted from the charge of said offences, accordingly after giving him benefit of doubt. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable U/s 3/9 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and U/s 120B IPC against accused Bijender Singh Panwar. He is acquitted, accordingly after giving him benefit of doubt.
Announced in the Open Court On 20.07.10.
(Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:39:In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 41/09 State Versus 1. Sanjit Kumar Paul S/o Sh. Khitish Chander Paul R/O H.No. 555/16, Nai Basti Gurgaon, Haryana.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 231/99 Police Station : Sriniwas Puri Under Section : 3/9 Official Secrets Act & 140/171/474 IPC r/w 120 B IPC Judgment pronounced on : 20.07.10 ORDER ON SENTENCE 1. Heard on the point of sentence.
2. The Learned Counsel for the convict Sanjit Kumar Paul submits that the convict has already suffered incarnation of about four years till he was released on bail. The prosecution has only been able to prove a recovery of a telephone directory and no other document falling SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:40:under Section 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act has been proved. The prosecution has also not established that the convict had committed forgery of the identity card. It was further submitted that the convict is 62 years of age and has suffered the trial of the case since the year 1999. He has family comprising of his wife and two children aged 18 & 21 years to look after. One of the child is girl child. Thus, a very lenient view be taken for him.
3. Per contra, Learned APP submits that the offence relates i.e. possession of telephone directory of the Armed Forces. Thus, the convict does not requires leniency.
4. The prosecution has shown a recovery of huge number of documents from the possession of the accused persons. However, except for a telephone directory, it has not been able to prove that any other document recovered from the possession of the convict fell within the scope of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. In the judgment Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Jaspal Singh 2003 (10) SCC 586, relied upon by the Learned APP, the appellant who was also found in possession of a telephone directory was sentenced U/s 3(1)(c) of Act and Section 120B IPC for a period of two years by the Trial Court. He was allowed to undergo the period of custody of one year six months and twenty days in appeal. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made, facts & circumstances of SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:41:the case, the convict is sentenced to RI for three years and six months for offence punishable U/s 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act, RI for two years for offence punishable U/s 471 IPC and is directed to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for three months and he is also sentenced for offence punishable U/s 140 IPC to RI for three months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given. Copies be given free of cost to the convict.
Announced in the Open Court On 20.07.10.
(Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:42:State Vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
FIR No. 231/99
PS : Sriniwaspuri
SC No. : 41/09
20.07.10
Present : Sh. Mohd. Iqrar- Learned APP for State.
Both accused on bail with Counsel Sh. Narender Chauhan. Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, accused Sanjit Kumar Paul is convicted for offences punishable U/s 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act, 1923, U/s 471 IPC and U/s 140 IPC. He is acquitted from the charge of offences punishable U/s 9 of Official Secrets Act, U/s 120B IPC and U/s 171 IPC after giving him benefit of doubt.
Accused Bijender Singh Panwar is acquitted from the charge of offences punishable U/s 3/9 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and U/s 120B IPC after giving him benefit of doubt.
Arguments heard on point of Sentence.
Vide order announced of even date on separate sheets, the convict Sanjit Kumar Paul is sentenced to RI for three years and six months for offence punishable U/s 3(1)(c) of Official Secrets Act, RI for two years for offence punishable U/s 471 IPC and is directed to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for three months and he is also sentenced for offence SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.
:43:punishable U/s 140 IPC to RI for three months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given to the convict.
It is reported by the Reader that convict Sanjit Kumar Paul had remained in custody for a period of three years, nine months and eighteen days in this case. Thus, the convict be not taken into custody as he had already spent the period of sentence in custody. Reader has also reported that fine of Rs.500/ has been deposited by the convict. Copies be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Shalinder Kaur) ASJ FTC (Central) : Delhi.
20.07.10 SC No.41/09: State vs. Sanjit Kumar Paul & Anr.