Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The prosecution is under the Official Secrets Act and it is unlikely that the Legislature would provide for a camera trial and at the same time provide for giving copies of all documents under section 173 to the accused. This strikes at the root of secrecy and goes counter to the provisions of trial in camera and this is why the Legislature purposely used the word 'complaint' and provided for a special procedure regarding cognizance. This view finds support from the provisions of Section 14 of the Act providing for camera trial.

We might also mention that s. 14 was interpreted by this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., where this Court while dealing with the question of holding proceedings in camera observed as follows:-

"Having thus enunciated the universally accepted proposition in favour of open trials, it is necessary to consider whether this rule admits of any exceptions or not. Cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of justice itself may make it necessary for the court to hold a trial in camera. While emphasising the importance of public trial, we cannot overlook the fact that the primary function of the Judiciary is to do justice between the parties who bring their causes before it. If a Judge trying a case is satisfied that the very purpose of finding truth in the case would be retarded, or even defeated if witnesses are required to give evidence subject to public gaze is it or is it not open to him in exercise of his inherent power to hold the trial in camera either partly or fully? ........That is why we feel no hesitation in holding that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in camera if the ends of justice clearly and necessarily require the adoption of such a course..... It is the fair administration of justice which is the end of judicial process, and so, if ever a real conflict arises between fair administration of justice itself on the one hand, and public trial on the other, inevitably, public trial may have to be regulated or controlled in the interest of administration of justice."
"When one has an order for trial in camera, all the public and all the press are evicted at one fell swoop and the entire supervision by the public is gone.. The actual conduct of the trial, the success or otherwise of the defendant, does not turn on this kind of thing, and very often the only value of the witness's name being given as opposed to it being withheld is that if it is published up and down the country other witnesses may discover that they can help in regard to the case and come forward."

This takes us to the substantive portion of the Act on which reliance was placed both by Mr. Mukherjee and by the High Court so as to hold that the section not only conferred powers on a court for holding the proceedings in camera but also to exclude publication of any evidence which includes the right of the accused to get copies of the statements recorded during police investigation or during the inquiry or during trial. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court, we feel that the main part of the section has not been correctly interpreted by them. The High Court seems to have taken for granted that section 14 consists of two separate parts, one, providing for a trial in camera, and the other prohibiting publication of evidence. By the expression 'publication of evidence' is meant, according to the High Court, the power to deprive an accused of the right to get copies of the evidence recorded by the court or the statements recorded during the police investigation. We might mention here that as s. 13(3) of the Act clearly provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon a complaint made by or under the authority of the Government or any person empowered by it, it is manifest that s. 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 1955, will not apply because the present case was not instituted on a police report but on the basis of a complaint. As the occurrence had taken place before the Code of 1973, therefore, the provisions of s. 207 of the Code of 1973 would not apply to the present case.