Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Reverting to the main issue the two courts below have found it as a fact that the acts or omissions for which the accused has been charged were committed by him in discharge of his official duty. To steer clear of the effect of such finding the learned Additional Solicitor General urged that in view of the charges framed under O.S. Act the accused could not claim any protection under Section 197 of the Code as espionage can by no stretch be taken to be official duty. The learned counsel submitted that the documents which were recovered from possession of the accused were such as could not have been in his possession when he had already retired and the proper custodian of those documents being the Central Government, no sanction was required for prosecuting the accused for possessing such documents. As a matter of law no exception can be taken to the submission that no public servant can indulge in espionage. But mere allegation of spying cannot deprive a public servant of the legal protection provided for in Section 197 of the Code. Section 3 of the O.S. Act, no doubt, provides penalty if any person acts in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State. This appeal is not concerned if the accused acted in such manner which can give rise to an inference in law that he was guilty of spying or acted in any manner to affect sovereignty and integrity of the country. The limited question is if the documents which were seized from the accused either at the airport or from his residence are such that they could have been obtained or procured by him while acting as Naval Officer in discharge of his duty. As is clear from the charge itself the accused was, selected in course of his employment in the Navy to study the feasibility of nuclear power, propelled submarine vessel along with a team of officers and was attached with B.A.R.C. as second officer in command. He joined the project in 1976 and was associated with the Centre for nearly 10 years. The accused while working with B.A.R.C. not only obtained Ph. D. but was even awarded gold medal for his achievements in computer technology and control engineering and a special Herbert Lott Memorial Award for his inventions in improving the existing, fighting devices of the Navy. It is not the case of prosecution that the documents which were seized either from the airport or the residence of the accused could not have been dealt by him when he was in service. Amongst various documents which were seized were the Identity Card of the Indian Armed Forces bearing his photograph and name, the eight files containing different types of maps of India, diagrams and computer information, a book by name 'Nuclear Power Plan' Modelling and Design, one brown envelope containing. lamination papers with diagrams, one book MWT Nuclear Submarine Propulsion Plant Design and one book Multi Point Satellite Links in Navnet System were also recovered from him. The documents which were found at his residence on. 31st May were computer communication on HF Links in Navnet and Advanced Technology Adaptation Centre, C-3 I System Development for Armed Forces Advanced Technology Adaptation for Defence, Multi Point Satellite Links in Navnet System, Government of India publications project report of Nuclear propulsion for Marine Application, one book about Sea on Control Radar and Display System for Land Design. Certain plan design of B.A.R.C. were also recovered from his possession. Most of the documents which can be said to be sensitive which were recovered from the accused were admittedly either the book written by him or the paper read by him as is clear from the Punchanama and the Statement of Witnesses who were produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove the same. Even the thesis written by the accused on which he was awarded Ph. D. by the Bhabha Institute of Technology was seized by the prosecution. The purpose of stating all this is to demonstrate that these papers were written and the books published when the accused was attached with B.A.R.C. as a Second Officer-in-Command and, therefore, the material or documents which were found by him cannot be said to have been collected or procured by him by going out of way and beyond the discharge of his duties as an officer in the Naval Department. May be some of them were secret, confidential or unclassified items. But the accused came across them and obtained their copies in course of his duty as an officer attached to B.A.R.C. Charge No. 2 is in respect of classified information obtained by him when he was in Naval service. Taking out of information obtained in course of employment was thus squarely covered by Section