Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit Kumar Gehlot on 3 February, 2015
Sessions Case No. 52/14 FIR No. 484/13 State Vs Lalit Kumar Gehlot Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) Under Section 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC. Convicted u/s 171 IPC, 419 IPC. u/s 471 IPC r/w sec. 511 IPC. Absolved u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 03.02.2015 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Accused / convict is in JC. Sh. V P S Raghav for accused/ convict. Arguments on the point of sentence heard, vide separate detailed order placed along side in the file, convict Lalit Kumar Gehlot is sentenced to undergo 20 months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 419 IPC and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine further sentence to undergo one month SI; further he is sentenced to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 171 IPC; and further he is sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 471 r/w 511 IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict. All sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict persons at free of cost forthwith. (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI Sessions Case No. 52/14 FIR No. 484/13 State Vs Lalit Kumar Gehlot Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) Under Section 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC. Convicted u/s 171 IPC, 419 IPC. u/s 471 IPC r/w sec. 511 IPC. Absolved u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE 03.02.2015 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Accused / convict is in JC. Sh. V P S Raghav for accused/ convict. ld. APP submits that offence of such types are increasing day by day. Ld. APP submits that accused has been convicted for the offence u/s 171 IPC, 419 IPC and u/s 471 IPC r/w sec. 511 IPC but he has been acquitted u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 by giving him benefit of doubt. On these grounds ld. APP submits that convict deserves maximum punishment. FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 2 Sh. V P S Raghav, Adv. submits that convict is 24 years old. He has old parents to look after. He is unmarried person. He is very poor person. He is the only bread earner in his family. Ld. counsel again submits that no previous criminal antecedents have borne on record in respect of convict. Ld. Counsel for the convict further submits that convict is in JC for the last about 15 months. Ld. Counsel further submits that convict is suffering with internal diseases and has recently been operated at the instance of Jail authorities. On these grounds ld. counsel for convict prays for taking lenient view at the time of awarding the sentence. I have heard the submissions of ld. Counsel for the convict and ld. APP as well. In light of the facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that convict is suffering with with internal diseases and has recently been operated at the instance of Jail authorities and belongs to a very poor family so, to my view ends of justice will be met if convict is sentenced to undergo 20 months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 419 IPC and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine further sentence to undergo one month SI; sentenced to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 171 IPC; and further sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 471 r/w 511 IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict. All sentences shall run concurrently. FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 3 Accordingly, convict Lalit Kumar Gehlot is sentenced to undergo 20 months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 419 IPC and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine further sentence to undergo one month SI; further he is sentenced to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 171 IPC; and further he is sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 471 r/w 511 IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict. All sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict persons at free of cost forthwith. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 03.02.2015 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 4 484/13 State v. Lalit Kumar Gehlot PS Vasant Kunj 31.01.2015 Pre: Ld. APP for the State. Accused in JC. File perused. Vide separate judgment announced in the open court and placed along side in the file, I convict accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot for the offences punishable u/s 171 IPC, 419 IPC. I also convict the accused u/s 471 IPC r/w sec. 511 IPC; and accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot is absolved for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 as discussed in the preceding paras. Now, put up for argument on the point of Order on Sentence for 03.02.2015. (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 5 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI Sessions Case No. 52/14 Assigned to Sessions. 31.01.2014 Arguments heard on 16.01.2015 Date of order. 31.01.2015 FIR No. 484/13 State Vs Lalit Kumar Gehlot s/o Joginder Singh r/o Village Uncha Gaon, Distt. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Present Add: Gali no.9, Indira Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi. Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) Under Section 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC. JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case are that on 02.11.2013 at about 11:55 A.M. at Airforce Station, Rajokari, accused entered in a prohibited place, i.e. Air Force Station, Rajokari and was found collecting the documents having the information relating to defence matter of India, the disclosure of this information to any unauthorized person may be prejudicial to the safety and interest of India and the information contained in these documents was directly or indirectly useful to the enemy country. He was also found carrying a I-Card purported to be issued in his name having his photograph, knowingly that this I- Card does not belong to him and this FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 6 can be used only by a class of public servant and accused does not belong to that class. At that time, accused was also found impersonating himself as Dinesh Kumar and Dilip Kumar knowingly that he is neither Dinesh Kumar nor Dilip Kumar and he did so with the purpose of cheating. Accused was also found forging the gate pass bearing no. D-299620 in the name of Dilip Kumar, which was a valuable security and he used this forged document as genuine knowingly and having reasons to believe the same to be the forged one. Accordingly, accused was arrested and booked for the offences under sections 140/ 171/ 419/ 467/ 468/ 471 IPC and 3/6 Official Secret Act.
2. This case was committed to this Court and was received on 31.01.2014 for trial as it pertains to the heinous crime committed under sections 171/ 419/ 467/ 471 IPC and 3/6 Official Secret Act, which is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. This court framed a charge for the offences punishable under sections 171/ 419/ 467/ 471 IPC and 3/6 Official Secret Act to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove and substantiate its case the prosecution has examined witnesses namely PW1 Group Captain Rohit Kapoor, Air Force Station Rajokari; PW2 ASI Naresh Kumar - duty officer; PW3 DilipKumar - Cleaner (Safai Karamchari) at Central Ordinance Depot FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 7 (whose I-Card was missing); PW4 Dinesh Kumar - Private Secretary (his I-Card was also missing); PW5 Ct. Dinesh Kumar - he accompanied the IO; PW6 Yashpal Singh Bisht - friend of accused and he had given his motorcycle to accused on asking; PW7 Taif Ali Khan - formal witness; PW8 Col. S. G. Dilbagi, Commanding Officer; PW9 SI Ranvijay - IO of the case; and PW10 HC Parvesh Kumar- formal witness being MHCM.
4.PW1 Group Captain Rohit Kapoor, Air Force Station Rajokari appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 02.11.2013 at about 12:00 noon accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot approached at the main gate of Airforce station Rajokari where he informed that he has come to meet Sgt. Mukherjee. He was in army fatigue uniform. He was told to produce his ID card, when the ID card was checked by the guard at the gate it was found that he was in possession of a ID card which had a different name than the name appeared on his name tab and the ID card which he was holding, belongs to civilian defence employees, thus the guard got suspicious and informed the station authorities from where the interrogation started. This witness further deposed that accused was found in possession of various articles which were given to the SHO, Vasant Kunj along with a letter. In the meantime, Airforce Liaison Unit, Airforce police, Army police and IB were also informed due to a suspicious nature of articles which were recovered from the person FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 8 who was trying to impersonate and entering the Airforce station. As per complaint Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A the following articles were recovered from the possession of the accused:
1. ID pass IAFZ3049A Sl. No. B299620
2. Mobile make Sony Experia 25i with earphone.
3. Mobile Samsung Buos
4. SBI ATM Maestro (6220180656300185146)
5. SBI ATM Master Card (5196200046517909)
6. SBI ATM visa (45915100849691421)
7. Driving License (DL-1200100042584)
8. ID Card no. (Y2132623)
9. Rastriya Swasthy Bima Yojana Card (Pebble 4 PB10000167077)
10. Adhar Card (665039483500)
11. Cash (500*03, 100*03 and 10*08)
12. Dependent card (self photo pasted but not signed)
13. Suicide note dated 09.09.2013
14. Canteen Smart Card (Grocery Card)
15. Pistol pouch
16. Wrist watch.
17. Sun Glass
5. PW1 further testified that at his pointing out the site plan was prepared by vide Ex.PW1/B signed by him at point A. He further deposed that the police took into possession of recovered articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C signed by him at point A. This witness correctly identified the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. This witness further testified that the accused had come on a motorcycle, however, he does not remember its number. This witness correctly identified the following articles:-
FIR no.484/13
Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 9
1. Driving license in the name of L. Santosh Sampat
2. SBI Cash cum ATM card bearing no.
6220180656300185146
3. ID card of department Ministry of Home Affairs No. Y-
2132623 valid upto July, 2016 in the name of Dinesh Kumar, Private Secretary.
4. Adhar Card No. 6650 3948 3500 in the name of Lalit Kumar
5. Dependent ID Card in the name of Lalit Kumar Gehlot
6. Rastriya Swasthy Bima Yojana Card (Pebble 4 PB10000167077)
7. SBI card no. 4591510084969141 in the name of Santosh Sampat Landge
8. SBI card no. 5196200046517909 in the name of Mr. Madan Mohan Sahu
9. Canteen Smart Card bearing no. GA05060503678600C01 in the name of Sanjay Kumar Kashyap
10. ID card no. IAFZ -3049- A Sl. No. - D 299620 in the name of Dalip Kumar
11. Suicide note dated 09.09.2013 whose writer name is not known.
PW1 stated that particulars of all the case property are mentioned in the compliant and all the case property is collectively exhibited as Ex.P1. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence counsel. I have perused the same. In the cross-examination I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. These contradictions do not go to the root of this case.
6.PW2 ASI Naresh Kumar appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 02.11.2013 he was working as duty officer in PS - Vasant Kunj South and his duty hours were from 04:00 PM to 12 midnight. A rukka was sent by SI Ranvijay through Ct. Dinesh Kumar on the basis of which he registered FIR No. 484/13. This witness further got exhibited FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 10 Computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A. He had also recorded DD no. 49/A dated 02.11.2013 at about 05:25 PM vide copy of the same as Ex.PW2/B. This witness further stated that he also made endorsement on original rukka vide Ex.PW2/C. This witness has not been cross- examined.
7. PW3 Dilip Kumar that he was working as safai karamchari in the Central Ordinance Depot and his II-Card, ATM Card were missing. He got lodged an NCR in this regard vide copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A. This witness on seeing the ID Pass IAFZ-3049-A Sl. No. D 299620 identified the ID card as belonging to him and stated that photograph on the ID does not belong to him. This witness has been cross- examined. I have perused the same. No contrary evidence has come on record.
8.PW4 Dinesh Kumar came in the witness box and deposed that he is working a Private Secretary in Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment at Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. On 04.01.2013 when he was in the reservation line at Hapur Railway Station his ID card was lost. He had given information about the loss of ID card on the same date. This witness got exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW4/A. Copy of his missing ID card is Ex.PW4/B and the same was bearing no. Y 2132623. This witness on seeing the original ID card bearing no. Y FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 11 2132623 placed on judicial file, identified the ID card as belonging to him. He got issued a duplicate ID card from his office subsequently. IO recorded his statement. The case property has already been exhibited collectively as Ex.P1. This witness has not been cross- examined.
9. PW5 Ct. Dinesh Kumar, appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 02.11.2013 he was posted in PS - Vasant Kunj (s) IO received DD No. 49A and he along with IO had gone to Rajokari Airforce Station. There he had met Group Captain Rohit Kapoor and other Airforce officers. The airforce officials produced the accused before them along with various other documents which were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. This witness further deposed that IO had handed over him a rukka at about 07:15 PM and the same was taken to the PS and he got the present case registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the FIR and the copy of rukka to the IO. IO also prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW1/B. The IO had also taken into possession the army uniform, boots etc vide Ex.PW5/A. IO had also taken into possession the motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW5/B. The number of the motorcycle was DL-9SAE-9468 make Discover. This witness further deposed that on 04.11.2013 three files were recovered from the accused containing some army documents and one law book pertaining to Delhi Police which were taken into FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 12 possession vide Ex.PW5/C. The accused had also identified his house and the place where the files were kept and a memo in this regard was prepared vide Ex.PW5/D. The accused was also arrested vide arrest memo vide Ex.PW1/D and he was also personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/E. Accused was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW5/F. This witness correctly identified the accused and the case property as already Ex.P1. The log book placed on judicial file as Ex.P2. The other papers recovered are collectively Ex.P3. This witness also identified the motor cycle bearing no.DL 9 S AE 9468 as Ex.P2, produced by superdar PW6 Yashpal Singh Bisht. This witness has been cross- examined at length. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
10.PW6 Yashpal Singh Bisht, is a formal witness in this case being superdar of the motorcycle. He stated that he is working as a private Computer Operator in IGNOU. He know the accused for about last 6 months and he used to meet him in the Palam area. Accused had told that he was employed in the Army. Accused had come to his house on 01.11.2013 and he told that he wanted to go to Noida and he wanted to borrow the motorcycle. This witness gave his motorcycle bearing No. DL-9S-AE- 9468 to the accused in good faith. He testified that he FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 13 came to know that the accused had been arrested and the motorcycle was taken into possession. IO had also recorded his statement. The motorcycle was got released by him on superdari from the court vide court's order dated 14.12.2013. This witness has been cross- examined. In the cross-examination it has come on record that accused used to meet him on the way and due to that he developed friendship with accused. He stated that he had seen the accused wearing Army uniform but he had not asked him as to where he was posted or in which unit he was working.
11.PW7 Taif Ali Khan, Distt. Programme Manager, is a formal witness in this case. He stated that he is working as Distt. Programme Manager in District Resource Centre, Mission Convergence, Distt. South, D.C. Office, Saket. He stated that record in respect of Aadhar Card of applicant Lalit Kumar bearing no.665039483500 is not available with them and the same might be available with the office of Division Commissioner or UID authorities or Enrollment Agencies. This witness has not been cross-examined.
12.PW8 Col. S.G. Dilbagi, Commanding Officer, 3 Training Battalion, 3 EME Center, Bhopal appeared in the witness box and deposed that he had received a letter in November, 2013 from Delhi Office and at that time he was posted in 505, Army Base Workshop, enclosing some FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 14 documents and inquiring whether those documents pertain to 505, Army Base Workshop. He had given a reply to the said letter that the documents appear to be pertaining to Lt. Col. J.S.Jaglan. The said officer was posted to detachment BWG which was attached to 505 Army Base workshop from 1.11.2009 up to 23.03.2012. After the said period the officer proceeded on permanent posting to VRDE, Ahmednagar. The documents sent to him as mentioned in his letter vide Ex.PW8/A. This witness has been cross-examined. I have perused the same. In the cross-examination it has come on record that after receipt of this official letter Ex.PW8/A he has not called Lt. Col. J.S.Jaglan to inquire as to how the documents mentioned in that letter were either lost or misplaced from his custody. He has not conducted any departmental inquiry regarding these documents on which the clarification was sought by the Hqtr. Delhi area. Vol. Since the documents were of informal nature and unclassified that is why no inquiry was conducted.
13.PW9 SI Ranvijay, IO of the case has deposed more or less on similar lines as deposed by PW5 Ct. Dinesh. He deposed that on 02.11.2013 on receipt of DD No. 49 A Ex.PW2/B he along with Ct. Dinesh reached Airforce Station Rajokari. He stated that Complainant produced written complaint vide Ex.PW1/A along with a list of articles 17 in number the particulars thereof mentioned in the list. He made endorsement on FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 15 the same vide Ex.PW9/A prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Dinesh for registration of the present case. He prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW1/B at the pointing out of the complainant and also prepared seizure memo Ex.PW1/C of the articles handed over to him. Accused was arrested vide his arrest memo and personal search memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW5/E. IO recorded his disclosure statement vide is Ex.PW5/F. Accused was got medically examined in Safdurjung Hospital. This witness further deposed that accused was jointly interrogated by team of IB officials and Police and interrogation report was prepared vide Ex.PW9/B. Accused was produced in the court on 03.11.2013 and was taken on two days PC remand. On the next day i.e, 04.11.2013 accused took the police to his house at Gali No. 9, Indira Park, Palam in which he was living as tenant. Accused got recovered 3 files from his house and particulars of the same were entered in the seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. IO had also prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW5/D. One passbook in the name of Sunil Kumar was also recovered from the house of accused bearing the address of Headquarter, Army Training Command and the same was also taken into possession vide same seizure memo. Accused was produced in the court on 05.11.2013 and was remanded to JC. IO had got verified the documents which were recovered from the army officers and ID card recovered from the accused pertaining to Ministry of Commerce was also got verified from one Dinesh Kumar employee FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 16 of the Ministry. He had also verified the ID card recovered from the accused which was in the name of Dilip Kumar, Sweeper in Central Ordinance Depot. However, the photograph of the accused was affixed on the ID of Dalip Kumar. IO had also verified the records of the ATM Card recovered from the accused but all the three accounts of the ATM card were found to be closed. The army uniform worn by accused was having name plate of Lalit Kumar. This witness has correctly identified the accused as well as case property. Ld. Defence counsel cross-examined this witness at length. I have perused the same. Some contradictions have come on record. These contradictions do not go to the root of this case.
14.PW10 HC Parvesh Kumar is a formal witness being MHC(M). This witness affirmed the fact that on 02.11.2013 a motor cycle bearing no. DL 9 S AE 9468 was deposited in the Malkhana with one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RK along with one pistol pouch, sun glasses, two mobile phones, one wrist watch and Rs.1880/- in cash in unsealed condition. He made the entry in this regard vide copy of the same as Ex.PW10/A. He also testified that on 14.12.2013 he released the motorcycle on superdari to its rightful owner. This witness has not been cross-examined.
15.All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. I have FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 17 perused their cross-examination very carefully. Having gone through their testimonies and cross-examination of these witnesses, I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. On minor type of contradictions the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of UP Vs Bhagwan AIR 1997 SC 3292: (1997) 1 SCC 19 made the following observations which are very relevant crucial and dominant in deciding the fate of the present case:-
"minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses are immaterial unless they demolished the basic case of the prosecution".
Observations made in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are exfacie indicative of the fact that when contradictions are minor the truthfulness of the witness cannot be discredited in all.
16.After recording prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused pleaded that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He pleaded that on 02.11.2013 in the afternoon he went to Air Force Station , Rajokari to meet one of his known person namely Mukherjee, who was working in the air force station Rajokari for buying some items from the canteen. He was standing at the gate and enquired of about that person from the guard who was on duty at the gate. He was taken inside in a room and police was called there and he was falsely implicated in the case. FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 18 Nothing was recovered from his possession except his Aadhar Card and some amount Rs.1800 approx. which he was carrying for purchasing canteen items. No disclosure statement was given by him. He was falsely arrested in this case by obtaining signatures on some of the blank papers. While in the police custody his photographs were also taken by the police, probably these photographs must have been misused so as to implicate him in a false case.
17.Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments ld. APP for the state submitted that accused was apprehended at the restricted area of Airforce Station, Rajokari. He further submitted that after his apprehension, 17 items were got recovered from his possession. Out of which two items appeared to have been identified by one Dalip Kumar and the same was having the photograph of the accused and another was the identity card of accused Dinesh Kumar who has been examined as PW4. Ld. APP further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these grounds he submitted that accused is liable to be convicted.
18.Contrary to it ld. counsel for the accused has opposed the contentions of the Ld. APP for the state and has gone through the deposition of material witnesses and submitted that the name of the person who had apprehended the accused is not given in the list of witnesses. He FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 19 further submitted that there is a hierarchy of officials in the department and in the hierarchy no official witnesses have been examined to prove this issue, only one official namely group captain Rohit Kapoor has been examined, who is not aware of the root of the case as he happens to be alone in the chain of hierarchy. He further submitted that the prosecution has not examined the security guards who was present at the time of arrest of the accused as well as at the time of recovery. He further submitted that there are number of contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. He further submitted that Section 3 and 6 of the Officials Secrete Act, 1923 are not attracted in this case precisely for the reason that it does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act. He further submitted that documents recovered from the accused were not in the list of classified documents which indicates that Section 3 of the Officers Secretes Act is not applicable. He further submitted that none of the documents was of the nature which endanger the security of the Nation, therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. He further submitted that no public person has been joined in the investigations which throw light on the conduct of the accused person. On these grounds he submitted that accused is liable to be acquitted.
19.For the sake of brevity and convenience let the relevant sections be re- produced verbatim which are as under:-
FIR no.484/13
Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 20 "3. Penalties for spying.--
(1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State--
(a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or
(b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or
(c) 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 an enemy 9 [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], he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of 10 [Government] or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.
(2) On a prosecution for an offence punishable under this section 11 [***] it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or password is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, and from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, such sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, 12 [information, code or password shall be presumed to have been made], obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.
6. Unauthorised use of uniforms, falsification of reports, forgery, personation and false documents.--
(1) If any person for the purpose of gaining admission or of assisting any other person to gain admission to a prohibited place or for any other purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State--
(a) uses or wears, without lawful authority, any naval, military, air force, police or other official uniform, or any uniform so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, or falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such uniform; or
(b) orally, or in writing in any declaration or application, or in any document signed by him or on his behalf, knowingly makes or connives at the making of any false statement or any omission; or FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 21
(c) forges, alters, or tampers with any passport or any naval, military, air force, police, or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document of a similar character (hereinafter in this section referred to as an official document) or knowingly uses or has in his possession any such forged, altered, or irregular official document; or
(d) personates, or falsely represents himself to be, a person holding, or in the employment of a person holding, office under 17 [Government], or to be or not to be a person to whom an official document or secret official code or pass word has been duly issued or communicated, or with intent to obtain an official document, secret official code or password, whether for himself or any other person, knowingly makes any false statement; or
(e) uses, or has in his possession or under his control, without the authority of the department of the Government or the authority concerned, any die, seal or stamp of or belonging to, or used, made or provided by any department of the 18 [Government], or by any diplomatic, naval, military, or air force authority appointed by or acting under the authority of Government, or any die, seal or stamp so nearly resembling any such die, seal or stamp as to be calculated to deceive, or counterfeits any such die, seal or stamp, or knowingly uses, or has in his possession or under his control, any such counterfeited die, seal or stamp, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section. (2) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State--
(a) retains any official document, whether or not completed or issued for use, when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or wilfully fails to comply with any directions issued by any department of the Government or any person authorised by such department with regard to the return or disposal thereof; or
(b) allows any other person to have possession of any official document issued for his use alone, or communicates any secret official code or pass word so issued, for, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any official document or secret official code or password issued for the use of some person other than himself, or, on obtaining possession of any official document by finding or otherwise, wilfully fails to restore it to the person or authority by whom or for whose use it was issued, or to a police officer; or
(c) without lawful authority or excuse, manufactures or sells, or has in his possession for sale, any such die, seal or stamp as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 19 [three years], or with fine, or with both.
(4) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 shall apply, for the purpose of proving a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State, to any prosecution for an offence under this section relating to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government, or to any secret official code in like manner as they apply, for the purpose of proving a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, to prosecutions for offences punishable under that section 20 [***]."
171 IPC.
Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent.--Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 22 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
419 IPC.
Punishment for cheating by personation.--Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 467 IPC.
Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471 IPC.
Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
20.Under section 4(2) Cr. PC, the provisions of the special law i.e. Official Secret Act have to be followed mandatory and resultantly the authorization should have been granted in order to file a complaint against the accused in terms of the provisions of the OS Act. In judgment titled as 'S P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath - 1994 AIR 853 - 1994 SCC (1) 1' it has been observed that:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal' observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/ decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. ..................... It is a pity that despite the evidence contrary to the case of the prosecution having come on record, the concerned officials of the state have failed to discharge their legal obligation seeking justice for the persons incarnated in the Jail without any iota of evidence but certainly with the aid FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 23 of concocted, tampered and false documents coupled with the adducing of the false evidence with the knowledge that the evidence adduced by them is false as is evident from the evidence of PW7, Pw8, Pw10, PW12, PW13 and PW14 in particular and other PWs in general".
21.ld. APP has relied upon the judgment AIR 1996 Supreme Court 569 'Sama Alana Abdulla V. State of Gujarat' 1995 AIR SCW 4487' wherein it has been observed that:-
"....If any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or password is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated".
From the way the said -section is worded it becomes apparent that the qualifying word 'secret' has been used only with respect to or in relation to official code or password and the legislature did not intend that the sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information should also be secret. As we do not find any substance in the second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is is also rejected. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed."
22.Having gone through the whole case file very carefully and material available on record, it is interesting to note that no inquiry was got conducted with regard to the alleged recovered documents / items which have been exhibited vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and collectively exhibited as Ex.P1 before the court, being informal in nature and unclassified. The deposition of PW8 Col. S G Dilbagi goes to indicate that it cannot be concluded that the recovered documents pertains to cause prejudice to the safety and interest of India. Apart from this, it has also come in his deposition that documents pertains to Lt. Col. J S Janglan, which impacts the finding with regard to the recovered documents that these were not prejudicial either directly or FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 24 indirectly to the enemy country as Lt. Col. J S Janglan has not been made witness in this case since the recovered documents alleged to have been belonging to him. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923. Hence, I absolve accused for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923.
23.So long as the offences u/s 419, 467 and 471 IPC are concerned, it has categorically come on record in the deposition of PW1 Group Captain Rohit Kapoor, Air Force Station Rajokari that on 02.11.2013 at about 12:00 noon accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot approached at the main gate of Airforce station Rajokari where he informed that he has come to meet Sgt. Mukherjee. He was in army fatigue uniform. He was told to produce his ID card and when his ID card was checked by the guard at the gate it was found that he was in possession of a ID card which had a different name than the name appeared on his name tab and the ID card which he was holding, belongs to civilian defence employees. His version has duly been corroborated by PW3 Dilip Kumar and PW4 Dinesh Kumar. They have categorically stated in their depositions that recovered ID cards vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C from the possession of accused, belongs to them but photographs FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 25 pasted on these ID cards do not belong to them. They have also stated that these ID cards were missing and they have informed in this regard to their respective offices. Accused has also failed to give any satisfactory explanation in this regard that as to why he was in possession such forged ID cards, pass and other documents / articles on 02.11.2013 at Airforce Station, Rajokari, Delhi. Therefore, in light of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be inferred that:-
on 02.11.2013 at about 11:55 A.M. at Airforce Station, Rajokari, accused entered in a prohibited place, i.e. Air Force Station, Rajokari and was found carrying a I-Card purported to be issued in his name having his photograph, knowingly that this I- Card does not belong to him and this can be used only by a class of public servant and accused does not belong to that class and thus prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 171 IPC;
further, accused was also found impersonating himself as Dinesh Kumar and Dilip Kumar knowingly that he is neither Dinesh Kumar nor Dilip Kumar and he did so with the purpose of cheating thus, again prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s 419 IPC within the definition of section 416 IPC;FIR no.484/13
Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 26 again, accused was also found using forged gate pass bearing no. D-299620 in the name of Dilip Kumar, which was a valuable security and he used this forged document as genuine knowingly and having reasons to believe the same to be the forged one, prosecution again successfully proved its case for the offence u/s 471 read with 511 IPC.
Accordingly, I convict accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot for the offences punishable u/s 171 IPC, 419 IPC. I also convict the accused u/s 471 IPC r/w sec.
511 IPC; and accused Lalit Kumar Gehlot is absolved for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 6 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 as discussed in the preceding paras.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31.01.2015 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.484/13 Lalit Kumar Gehlot u/s 3, 6 Official Secret Act and 419, 467, 471 IPC 27