Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i. Disclosure of the charter of duties of R&AW, recommended by the Group of Ministers on National Security in 2001; ii. Facts related to Project "Vision 2000" related to upgradation of the technological capabilities R&AW
iii. Facts related to the two projects of "Vision 2000" namely VSAT project and UHF/VHF antennae; and iv. Disclosure of locations of the R&AW stations in India as well as in foreign missions.

11. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. for CBI submits that the book titled "India‟s External Intelligence-Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)" by the petitioner has revealed the contents of secret recommendations of the Group of Ministers‟ Recommendation of Internal Security given in 2001, details of „top secret‟ future technology upgradation project "Vision 2000" of R&AW and specific technical aspects of the VSAT project and UHF/VHF projects along with the specific and general details of the locations of the R&AW stations in India, and the publisher Vivek Garg, despite being aware of the contents of the book as being secret/top secret/classified in nature, published the same. It was contended by learned Spl.P.P that even if the intent of the petitioner was to reveal the illegalities, corruption, indiscipline and nepotism in the functioning of R&AW, there was no need to divulge any secret/classified information of the organization. Learned Spl.P.P. for CBI further submits that during investigation 19 documents classified as secret/top secret were seized and owing to the sensitive nature of those documents, the learned Sessions Judge allowed for conducting in camera hearing of the anticipatory bail application in terms of the Section 14 of the OSA. It was submitted that the present case is not related to any information on corruption, but pertains to unauthorized publication of secret and top-secret information. Further, the reliance by the petitioner on the MoD website as also various newspapers and magazine articles is misplaced as the entire chapter on „Intelligence Apparatus‟ had been deleted from the said MoD website, and any article so published by any newspaper or magazine cannot be considered to be credible until endorsed or refuted by any government agency, but the petitioner was himself a part of R&AW, divulged the sensitive information soon after his retirement from the office of R&AW. It was further submitted that at the time of registration of FIR, reliable information in form of a letter from Cabinet Secretariat was received, which prima facie constituted offence committed by the accused persons and made out a case under Section 5 of OSA. Thus, the FIR was rightly registered and pursuant to the FIR, during investigation ample evidence has been collected by the respondent based on which complaint by the competent authority and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of concerned CMM.