1

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

Receivedon:06/07/2007 Registeredon:06/07/2007 Decidedon:29032011 Duration:Ys.Ms.Ds. INTHECOURTOFCHIEFJUDICIALMAGISTRATE,PUNE AT:PUNE (PresidedoverbySuchitraS.Ghodke) R.C.C .NO.2361OF2007 EXH. StateofMaharashtra throughPoliceInspector AntiExtortionBranch,Pune. V/S. VishalkumarPremshankarUpadhyaya Age27years,Occu.Education R/at SankatMochanMarg, Bokarocity,Jharkhand. CHARGE : Offence punishable under section 3,9ofOfficialSecretAct,1923and 120BofIndianPenalCode. APPEARANCE : Shri.P.B.Gaikwad,Lrd.,A.P.P.fortheState. ShriR.V.Katore,Advocatefortheaccused. JUDGMENT [DictatedandDeliveredon29032011] 1. The Anti Extortion Branch, Pune chargesheeted the ] ]..Complainant. ] ] ] ]Accused. ]

accusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection3and9ofOfficial SecretAct,1923andundersection120BofIndianPenalCode.

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

2.

Assistant Police Inspector Mr. Raghunath Phuge lodged

thecomplainttoDeccanPolicestationvideC.R.No.173/2007on 8/4/2007. On the very date he wasposted in theAntiExtortion Branch and was working with Mr. Barge, Police Inspector. On 6/4/2007 Mr. Barge has intimated him by calling him that they receivedtheinformationthatoneMr.VishalkumarUpadhaya,age 25yearsresidingatGangaLodge,RoomNo.3,DeccanGymkhana hadreturnedfromPakistan.HewasholdingdocumentsofthePune MilitaryandalsothereligiousplacesofPuneCity.Hewashaving photographsofreligiousplacesandCDsandhewasgoingtosendit recentlytothePakistanthroughsomebody.Complainantwasasked tokeep watch on him. On 8/4/2007 at about 12.00noon Mr. Bargehadcalledthecomplainantinhisroomandinformedthaton the very date he was sending the documents CDs, photographs throughunknownperson. Duetowhichtherewasdangertothe securityofthenation.Hehasalsoinformedhimthatheshouldbe arrested by any means. Deccan Gymkhana Police Inspector Mr. Patilwasalsointimatedaboutthesameandproposedraid. Mr. Barge has obtained permission from Mr. Anil Kumbhare, Deputy CommissionerofCrimeBranch,Pune. ThereafterMr.Bargealong withstaffandtwopanchas,B.R.Patil,hadgonetotheGangaLodge RoomNo.3,Deccanandknockedthedoorofroomno.3wherein onepersonhadopenedthedoorandoninquiryhehaddisclosedhis name as Vishalkumar Upadhaya, age 24 years, Sankat Mochan Marg,Bokarocity,Jharkhand.Immediatelythepolicehavestarted hispersonalsearchandonpersonalsearchinsidepantpocketone Indian Passport was found. Shirt having in andwherein he had

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

keptonegreencolourenvelope. Theenvelope wastakenouton which the Sallahudin Sha, Rashid Minhas Road, Javahar Mod, Sunnypride,BlockNo.A,Firstfloor,KarachiPakistanwaswritten. On the backside of that envelope Mr. Vishalkumar Upadhya, Hadapsar,Punewaswritten.TwoCDswhichwerekeptinsidewere seenbythepoliceontheirlaptop.InthesaidCDsthephotographs ofmilitarybuildingswereexisting.Nearabout34photographswere existingthere. Intherightsidepantpocket oftheaccusedone black colour money purse was found in which Rs.300/of Indian currencyandthefivedollarofAustraliandollarsandoneWestern Unioncustomerreceivedmoneyreceiptwasfound.Thediarypages were torn and the address of the Karachi Pakistan were written. OneblackcolourdiaryofthecontainingwrittenUrdudiary,then one Icard of Annasaheb Magar College was found. In the shirt pocket Nokiacompanymobile wasfound. Otherarticlesliketen CDs,wristwatch,plasticbagswerefound.Allthesedocumentsand articles were seized by the police by drawing panchnama on the spotThelabelswereaffixedonitbyobtainingthesignaturesofthe panchas. During investigation it was transpired that accused was having criminal conspiracy with Sallahudin Sha ISI agent of Pakistan and Tirmizi andAbdul Latif. After returning toDeccan PolicestationA.P.I.Mr.Phugelodgedthecomplaint.Accordingto thecomplainanttheaccusedhascommittedanoffencepunishable undersection3,9ofOfficialSecretsActandundersection120Bof theIndianPenalCode.

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

3.

ThechargeagainstaccusedwasframedatExh.8.Accused

deniedthechargeandclaimedtobetriedforthesame.Thedefence istakenbytheaccusedisthathewashavingtheloveaffairwitha girl of Pakistan Miss. Fatima Sallahudin Sha and he has also admittedthathehasvisitedtwotimesatPakistananddeniedthe allegations about the collection of CDs and photographs and intentiontohandovertheinformationtoPakistanwhichislikelyto affectthesovereignty,integrityandsecurityofIndia.Hehasalso deniedthechargeofanycriminalconspiracywithSallahudinSha, AbdulLatifandTirmizi. 4. 1. Pointsfordeterminationare POINTS FINDINGS Whethertheprosecutionprovesthat on8/4/2007atabout3.00p.m.at GangaLodge,BranchNo.2,RoomNo.3, DeccanGym.Punetheaccusedfound inpossessionthecollectedCDsand photographsofmilitarybuildingsand CDs&photographsofreligiousplacesofPune city,whichisusefultoanenemy disclosinginformationwhichislikely toaffectthesovereignty,integrity ofIndia? ..Intheaffirmative. Whethertheprosecutionprovesthat theaccusedonthesaiddate,time andplaceattemptingtocommunicate thecollectedCDs,photographsand informationtoPakistanagentfor thepurposeofprejudicialtothesafety oftheStateandwhichtheinformation wasdirectlyandindirectlyusefultothe enemies? ..Intheaffirmative.

2.

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

3.

Whethertheprosecutionprovesthat theaccusedonthesaiddate,time andplacetheaccusedcommitted criminalconspiracywiththePakistan residentSallahudinShatoothers tocommittheoffence? ..Intheaffirmative. Whatorder? .Asperfinalorder. REASONS

4.

ASTOPOINTNOS.1TO3: 5. HeardthelearnedAPPMr.P.B.GaikwadfortheState

andlearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedMr.R.V.Katore. 6. The accused has been chargesheeted for the offence

punishableundersection3,4and9oftheOfficialsecretsAct,1923 andundersection120BofIndianPenalCode. 7. Anti Extortion squad Pune Branch, Police inspector

Bhanupratap Barge received the confidential information on 06/04/2007 that one Vishalkumar Upadhayay Age 25 years, Resident of Ganga Lodge, Room No. 3, Deccan, had visited the Pakistanon14/10/2006and23/01/2007andtakenthetrainingfor terrorismactivities.HehascollectedtheinformationintwoCDsof HindustanAntibioticsFactory,H.E.AFactory,NDA,BEG,Bombay Shopper,SouthernCommand,thenamesandtelephonenumbersof theArmyOfficers,Armyconfidentialdocuments,CDs,photographs aswellasCDsandphotographsofthefamousShrimantDagduseth Halwai Ganpati Mandir, RMS Sangthana Motibaug, Head office,

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

Airport, Pune City religious places. It was intimated that he was goingtodeliveritwithinshortperiodtothepersonofPakistan.On the basis of this information the concerning investigation branch keptthewatch ontheaccused. Hisplace ofresidence i.e.Ganga Lodge, Branch No. 2, Room No.3,Deccan Gymkhana, Punewas raided. He was found in possession the above official secret documentsofMilitary,photographs,CDsaswellasthephotographs andCdsofthereligiousplacesofPunecity.Duringthecourseof investigationitwasalsotranspiredthathehasattemptedtosendit toPakistanwiththehelpofthePakistaniAgentsSallahudinShaand with the help of the two staff members Mr. Sayeed S. Hussain Tirmizi and Abdul Latif working with the Pakistan High Commission. 8. Theaccusedhascomebeforethiscourtthatheisstudent

ofAnnasahebMagarEngineeringCollege,Hadapsar,Pune.Hehas deniedthecaseoftheprosecution.Hehasadmittedhisvisitstothe Pakistanfortwotimes.Accusedhasgiventheexplanationthatdue totheloveaffairwiththegirlofPakistanhehadgonethere. 9. In order to establish the guilt of the accused the

prosecutionhasexaminedinallninewitnessesnamelyatExh.19 thecomplainantAPIMr.RaghunathVithalPhuge,atExh.68Mr. SachinChandrakantJadhav,ownerofGangaLodge,DeccanGym, Pune,atexh.70Mr.RavirajRaosahebJadhav,theownerofGanga CyberCafe,DeccanGymkhana,Pune,atexh.73Mr.YogeshSharad Thorat,theownerofAmbikaLodge,atExh.76Mr.ShaikhManchar

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

ImmamNarulhua,MaulanaImmanShahinMazid,Hadapsar,Pune, atExh.77Mr.NamdeoNarayanKunjeerthepanchwitness,atExh. 80Mr.ShubhanNagrajYadavthenephewofSantoshYadav,the owner of Icon Net Cafe Kothrud, at exh. 87 Mr. Bapu Narayan PawarthepanchwitnessoftheraidofGangaLodgeandatexh.95 Mr. Bhanupratap Shankarrao Barge, the police Inspector, Crime Branch,InvestigatingOfficer,Pune. 10. The complainant has narrated at Exh. 19 that on

6/4/2007 he was posted as API at Anti extortion Crime Branch, Pune.Mr.Barge,PoliceInspectorwastheunitcommanderoftheir squad.On6/4/2007Mr.Bargehasinformedhimthattheaccused hadgoneatPakistanfortwotimesandhewasresidingatGanga Lodge in Room No. 3, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune. It was also informed that he was havingthe CDs ofdefence buildings, Pune areatempleandpilgrimarea.HewasgoingtosendittoPakistan throughsomebody.Hence,thedirectionwasgiventokeepwatchon him. Accordingly, they kept the watch on him. On 8/4/2007 at about 12.00 p.m.. Police Inspector Mr. Barge called him and intimated him accused was going to send that confidential information existing in CDs and the photographs through one unknownpersontoPakistan.Itwasdangeroustothenationand national integrity. Mr. Barge has asked him to make attempt to arresthim.AtthattimeMrB.R.Patilwasthepoliceinspectorofthe Deccan Police station to whom the said witness has given the informationinsummary.OntheverydateMr.Bargehadobtained theauthorityletterfromDeputyCommissionerofPoliceMr.Anil

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

KumbhareforthesearchofplacewhereVishalkumarwasresiding and also taken the authority for his personal search. The said evidenceiscorroboratedasitisatExh.95inhisoraltestimony.Mr. BargehasnarratedatExh.95thathehadissuedarequestletter addressedtoDCPon8/4/2007whichdocumentisproducedatExh. 96. Exh. 96 bears thesignature ofDCP andalso bears theorder givingauthoritytoMr.Barge.TheauthoritylettergivenbyMr.Anil Kumbhare is produced at exh. 97.The said letter authorized the Investigating Officer Mr. Barge to search the premises where the accused was residing. It also discloses the authorization given to himtodothepersonalsearchoftheaccused. 11. Thecomplainanthasfurtherstatedthathehimselfalong

withtwopolicestaff,investigatingofficerMr.Bargehadgonetothe DeccanPolicestationtheretheyhavealsotakenthepolicestaffof DeccanPolicestationandpoliceinspectorMr.B.R.patil.Theyhave madetheentryinthestationdiaryofDeccanPolicestation.The InvestigatingOfficerMr.Bargehasnarratedinhisevidenceinpara 2 thathehadalsointimatedtoMr.B.R.patil,theSeniorPolice InspectorofDeccanPolicestationabouttheproposedraidinview oftheauthorityletter.HehasgivenareporttotheInspector,Anti Extortion branch, about their proceeding towards raid at Ganga LodgeRoomNo.3,ThestationdiaryNo.8/2007atabout12.35 pm..bythepolicestationofficerofcrimebranch.Itisentryisat exh.99.Alongwiththepolicestaffandpanchtheyproceededby privatevehicletowardsDeccanPolicestationandreachedatabout 1.00p.m..TheirreportinwritingaddressedtothePoliceInspector

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

ofDeccanPolicestationisatexh.100andthepolicestationdiary entryisbearingNo.15/07takenbytheconcernedpolice station officerofDeccanPolicestationwhichismarkedasExh.101. 12. According to the prosecution witness the complainant

theyreachedatGangaLodgeatabout13.15hours.Accordingtothe investigating officer the manager of Ganga Lodge Sachin ChandrakantJadhavwaspresentthere.Theyintroducedthemselves anddisclosedthereasonfortheirvisit.Sachintookthemtowards theRoomNo.3situatedonthirdfloor.Theyknockedthedoor.The accused had opened the door. At that time the complainant and raiding party asked his name and address who has disclosed his name as Vishalkumar Premshankar Upadhyaya whose age is 24 yearsoldresidentofSankatmochanMarg,GujaratColony,Bokaro city,Jharkhand.Theyintimatedhimthereasonfortheirvisitand alsointimatedabouthispersonalsearchandsearchofhisroom. 13. Thepolicehavedonethepersonalsearchandsearchof

theroominpresenceofpanchwitnessesaswellastheinpresence oftheowneroftheGangaLodge.Theaccusedhasdeniedabouthis residenceintheGangaLodgeinRoomNo.3.Accordingtohimhe has never resided in the Ganga Lodge but he was residing at SaipurvaHostel,NeartotheAnnaSahebMagarCollege.Toprove hisresidenceoftheaccusedintheGangaLodgeon8/4/2007the prosecutionhasexaminedthewitnessSachinChandrakantJadhav atExh.68.

10

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

14.

In the testimony of this witness Sachin it has come on

record that he is owner of the Ganga Lodge situated at 1253, Deccan having two branches. Inthebranch No.1oftheGanga Lodge they used to keep the customer on daily basis and in the branch No. 2 of Ganga Lodge on monthly basis. He has further narratedthattheaccusedVishalkumarwashiscustomer.Hehad cometohimon30/3/2007. Hewasdemandedroomonmonthly cot basis. Here I would like to refer the one admission given in statementundersection313ofCr.P.C.bytheaccusedthatheused tovisitGangaCybercafe,situatedat683,DeccanGym.Pune. 15. The witness Raviraj Raosaheb Jadhav owner of Ganga

Cybercafenarratedatexh.70thatbeingtheownerofGangaCyber cafeheusedtoopenthecafeat9.00a.m..andusedtoclose at 10.00p.m..Rs.10/wasthechargeforthecybercafecustomerfor onehour.Heusedtotakeentryofthecustomerinregisterforhow manyhourshewassittingthere.HeknowstheaccusedVishalkumar whostartedvisitinghiscybercafefrom21/3/2007.Accordingtohis versionaccusedusedtovisitbetween10.30to11.00a.m..hewas doingchattingonthenetofYahoomessenger.On30/3/2007he hadcometohiscybercafe.Thewitnesshastoldhimthatinthe lodge of his brother the place was available. Prior to that the accusedwasresidingatMotimahallodgewherehewasrequiredto paymorefare.HencehehasrequestedthewitnessRavirajforthe another place. Under these circumstances, the brother of this witness, Sachin Jadhav has provided room to the accused on 30/3/2007. With reference to the owner of cyber cafe Raviraj,

11

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

accusedhadgonetotheGangaLodgeownedbythewitnessSachin Jadhav. His residence in the Ganga lodge is after his visits of Pakistan.ThedateofPakistanvisitoftheaccusedwere14/10/2006 and23/01/2007.InthecrossexaminationofthewitnessSachinit hascomeonrecordthatcybercafeownerRavirajJadhavwhoishis brother.Hehasseentheaccusedon6th inthelodge.Nospecific date of which month, year is asked in crossexamination. The defencetakenbytheaccusedisthathewasarrestedon5/4/2007 then such type of suggestion given by his Advocate discard his defence.ThewitnessSachinhasstatedinthecrossexaminationthat Ravirajistheownerofcybercafewheretheaccusedusedtositwho hasreferredhimhisGangalodge. 16. The witness Sachin Jadhav has further narrated that

accused has written his mobile No. 9823413471 and land line 06542235001,studentcomeforeducationintheregisterentry.The accusedhadpaidhimRs.1000/andhehadsignedonit.Theentry was taken in the register in regular course of the Ganga Lodge register.Atexh.69thewitnesshasproducedhisoriginalregister. In the said register at Sr. No. 3 there is a entry in the name of visitorsVishalkumarUpadhyaya,ageapproximate23years,Gujarat Colony, Jharkhand, phone No. 9823413471 and 06542235001, occupation as student,date andarrival 30/3/2007 atabout 4.00 p.m.. thereason for thevisit isstudy,amountispaidRs.1000/. When he was residing in Saipurva hostel what was necessity to resideinGangaLodge,itonlysuggesttheillintentionofaccused,as noexplanationisgiven.Thewitnesshasnarratedthatthewritten

12

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

contentsareinthehandwritingofaccused.Inthecrossexamination ofthiswitnessnothinghasbeenchallengedbytheaccused.Only thesuggestionwasgiventhatreceiptwasnotgiventotheaccused. Buttheexplanation isgivenbythewitnessbysayingthatasthe accusedhasnotpaidthefullamounthehasnotissuedanyreceipt. ThewitnessSachinhasnarratedandcorroboratedthecaseofthe prosecutionabouttheirvisiton8/4/2007atGangaLodgeBranch No.2.Hehasalsosupportedtheprosecutioncasethataccusedwas presentintheroomno.3andpolicehavetakenthesearchofhis room as well as his personal search. This given evidence is also remainedunrebutted. 17. From the said oral evidence the prosecution has

established that on the basis of information the Police Inpsector, complainantandthepanchwitnesseshasraidedtheGangaLodge No.2on8/4/2007atabout13.15hoursandraidedtheroomno.3 inpresenceoftheowneroftheGangaLodgeSachinJadhav.Inthe room the customer of Ganga Lodge residing from the date 30/3/2007wasexistingintheroomNo.3.Itisalsoprovedthatthe policehavestartedthesearchofhisroomandhispersonalsearch. Theresidenceofaccusedon8/4/2007intheGangaLodgeNo.2, RoomNo.3isprovedbytheprosecutionbeyondreasonabledoubt. 18. OnthepersonalsearchoneIndianPassportbearingno.

F1863965wasfoundintherightsidepantpocketoftheaccused. The accused has admitted the passport no. F 1863965 in his statementundersection313ofCr.P.C.inquestionno.8.butheis

13

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

denyingthesearchofthesaidpassportinhisrightsidepantpocket. 19. In respect of the said passport the police have done

investigationbyissuingthelettertotheSuperintendentofRegional Passportofficeon13/4/2007.Atexh.128thecopyofthesaidletter sent by Inspector Mr. Barge which is produced on record. The photocopiesofthepassport,hisapplicationformandthedocuments attached by the accused were asked to be submitted. The said passportwasissuedatRanchion7/3/2005.Hisexpiredpassport No. T 658836 issued at Patna on 16/01/1995 and its No. was RCHKOO218104. From the said documents it is clear that the accusedhadobtainedhisfirstpassportintheyear1995andlateron intheyear2005. Theaccusedhasadmittedhispassport.Itwas issuedbeingthePakistanVisawhichismarkedatExh.26.Thereply givenbypassportauthorityisatExh.167. 20. Thereafteronelightgreencolourpacketwastracedout

onhispersoninsidetheshirt.OnthesaidpacketSallahudinSha, RashidMiasRoad,JawaharMode,Salipride,BlockNo.A,Karachi, Pakistan was written. On the other side of the said packet VishalkumarUpadhyayawaswritten.TheyfoundtwoCDsinsideit. ThepolicehaveseentwoCDswhichwereseenonthelaptop.Inthe said CD the photographs of the building of the Defence and photographs of the Lord Dagduseth Ganpati, photographs of Bombayshoppers,ammunitionfactoryandphotographsofAirport roadwerefound.TheenvelopeisatExh.56.Insidetheexh.56the two cds and 48 photographs were found. On one CD NDA was

14

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

written.ItismarkedasExh.57.OntheanotherCDthePunecity was written which is already marked at Exh. 48. The 48 photographswereinrespectofDagdusethHalwaiGanpatiTemple, KhadkiAmmunitionFactory,HindustanAntibioticsFactory,Bombay Shopper Vishrantwadi, BEG building and other building photographswhichweremarkedasExh.59. 21. record. 22. According to the prosecution further on the personal Inrespectofthissearcheddocumentinthepossessionof

the accused there is no cross examination nor any denial is on

searchtheaccusedwasfoundinpossessiononeblackcolourmoney purse in his right side pant pocket which isat Exh.27in which Rs.300/whichismarkedasExh.28,fiveAustraliandollarswhichis markedasexh.29,westernunionmoneytransferreceiptExh.30, includingthesendersnameasFatimaSallahudinandreceivername wasVishalkumarUpadhyayawasfound.TheidentitycardofAnna SahebMagarCollegewasfoundwhichisaExh.31.Thetornblue pagesofdiaryin13numberswerefoundwhichismarkedasexh. 32. One Debit Card was found which is marked as exh.34. The mobileofNokiabluecolourmodelNo.3330bearingHutchcompany SIM Card no. 8991270609041696512 was found in possession which is marked as exh. 35. If we perused the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr. P.C.the questions were asked abouttheseizerofthearticlesofhispassportExh.26,thepurse, Indiancurrency,Australiancurrency,thereceiptofWesternUnion

15

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

MoneystandinginthenameofFatimaandmoneyreceivedbyhim, his identity card of Annasaheb Magar College, then 13 blue and whitecolourpagesofthediary,thedebitcardofSBIExh.34,then mobile of blue colour Nokia company Exh. 35 all these seized articlesfromhispossessionbythepoliceon8/4/2007admittedby himinviewofthequestionsaskedhimatSr.No.18to25. 23. Furtherduringthecourseofseizerofthearticlesinthe

whitecolourplasticbagthe29pagesinformationofMilitaryofficers ofdifferentplacesnumbers,wasexistingandthesaidlistwasseized whichisatExh.36.Therailwaymapwhichisalsoseizedwhichis atexh.39.The twowhitecolourenvelopessentfromKarachion the address of Annasaheb Magar College bearing Mobile No. 9860179763havingthesealwerefoundwhicharemarkedasExh. 40,41.ThesetwoenvelopeswereinthenameofRaj.Theaccused hasadmittedthesetwoenvelopesinviewofthequestion no.29 askedundersection313ofCr.P.C.Exh.42isadocumentwhichis aguidancefileforthefurthereducationisadmittedbytheaccused foundinhispossession.Theseizeddiarypageshavingthenumbers ofPuneMumbaiwhichisatExh.43,thegreencolourpagewhichis in the handwriting is a marun colour marked as Exh. 44. The accusedhasadmittedExh.43thediarypagesbuthedoesnotknow exh.44.Theoneseizedgoldendiarywhichisatexh.45isadmitted bytheaccusedownedbyhiminviewoftheanswerofExh.35.The accusedhasadmittedtheseizedwristwatchofSicocompanywhich ismadeinJapanhavinglabelof91438ownedbyhiminviewof questionno.34ofStatementundersection313.Theaccusedhas

16

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

also admitted the seized the archy company wrist watch in blue colourboxwhichisatexh.47ownedbyhim.Theseizeroftwopens ofAmazingcompanyoneredandbluecolourisadmitted bythe accused.TheExh.49radiomirchiofbluecolourhorizon2000is owned by him in view of the answersgiven ateXh.36and37 respectively.Theaccusedisadmittingtheseizeroffourgreetings cardswhichareownedbyhimwhicharemarkedasexh.50.the seized ten negatives of photo ofFatima produced atExh.51are admitted by him in view of the answer of question no. 38. The accusedhasadmittedtehseizeroftheletterwrittenbySallahudin Shawhichisatexh.53andalsoadmittedthetwoletterswrittenby KashistotheaccusedinthenameofRajwhicharemarkedasexh. 54.Theaccusedhasadmittedatthequestion39thattheybelongs tohim.ThereisseizerofoneenvelopeinthenameofSallahudin ShaallegedtobewrittenbytheaccusedontheaddressRasidMinaz Road Karachi, Pakistan. Exh. 57 are the two CDs existing in the plastic of cover of sony writeen as NDA were seized from the possessionoftheaccused.TheCDsofmoserbercompanyofPune cityproducedatExh.58.Thereisaseizerof48photographsofthe templelordganeshDagdusethHalwai,KhadkiAmmunitionFactory, HindustanAntibiotics,BombayShoppersandotherphotographsat exh.49.ThefourCDswhicharemarkedasExh.60wereseizedout ofwhichtheaccusedisadmittingtheCDsofmarriagefunctionof Fatima'ssisterwereownedbyhimandotherCDsnotofhim. 24. Aftertheseizerofthearticlesthepanchnamawasdrawn

onthespotinpresenceofthepanchwitnesses.Ifweperusedthe

17

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

crossexaminationofthecomplainantnothinghasbeenchallenged bytheaccusedabouttheseizedarticlesfromhispossessionnarrated bythewitness.TheAdvocatefortheaccusedhasarguedthatthe panchnamaExh.88isnotdulyproved.Tosecuretheconvictionthe seizerpanchnamaofthearticlesfromthepossessionoftheaccused isrequiredtobeproved.Itisarguedonbehalfoftheaccusedthat investigatingofficerisnotawareofthenumberofworkersworking withtheownerofGangaLodgeSachin.Secondlyhehasarguedthat theaccusedhasnevervisitedtheGangaLodge.Theinvestigating officerhasnotmadequerythathowmanycustomerswereexisting inhislodge.Inthecrossexaminationthesuggestionwasgivenby theAdvocatefortheaccusedthatatthetimeofsearchofroomof the accused except their police staff and the accused and panch witnessesnobodywaspresentthere.Thesaidsuggestionshowsthat thereisanadmissionoftheraidofthepoliceintheroomofthe accusedandtheaccusedwasresidingintheGangaLodge. 25. Tosupportthe caseoftheprosecutiontheseizerpanch

witnessMr.BapuNarayanPawarwasexaminedatExh.87.Thesaid witnesshasactedasapanchwitnessatthetimeofraidatGanga Lodge. He has narrated that on 7/4/2007 he was called by Anti Extortionsquadoffice,Pune.DeepakEknathJadhavanotherpanch wasaccompaniedwithhim.Mr.Bargehasaskedhimwhetherhe willactaspanchwitnessatthetimeofvisitatDeccanarea.Hehad gone along with the Mr. Phuge, Barge and the police staff by governmentvehicle.TheyhavevisitedtehGangaLodgeBranchNo. 2,SachinJadhavmetthere.Hetookthemtothethirdfloorofthe

18

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

buildingthentheyknockedtheroomno.3andthepersonopened thedoorwhodisclosedhisnameasVishalkumarUpadhyaya.Police started investigation. Before him police have taken the personal searchoftheaccused.Theyhavetakenthepersonalsearch.Then articleswereseizedbeforehimwhichhehasnarratedandidentified eachandevery articles in his chiefexamination. Furtherhehas statedthatallthearticleswereseizedandsealedbeforehimand panchnama was also drawn before him. The exh. 88 bears his signature. The contents are true and correct. In the cross examinationithascomeonrecordthatthesaidpanchhasworked inC.R.No.57/2008ofRCCNo.983/2008.Thoughhehasgiven the said admission there is no further explanation that in what contexthehasactedasapanchwitness.Thereisnoquestionthatof whichpolicestationtheRCCNo.983/2008wasthereinwhichhe hasactedaspanchwitness.Eventhereisnoexplanationtakenfrom thewitnessthatMr.Bargehasdrawnthatpanchnamaofthatcase No.983/2008.OnlythisadmissiontoactaspanchwitnessinC.R. No.57/2008ofRCCNo.983/2008doesnotdiscardtheevidentiary valueofhisevidencewhichissupportingtotheprosecution,toact aspanchwitnesshewaspresentatthetimeofraidatGangaLodge. Advocate for the accused has drawn my attention towards the reportedrulings 1. 1994Cri.L.J.1020 Between MohammadHussainRamzan V/s. StateofMaharashtra

19

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

The two accused were convicted under section 21read with 1C of N. D. P. S.Act and the said order of conviction was challengedonthegroundofseizerofheroinfromthepossessionof thetwoaccused,anditstakingofthesamplefromtheaccused.The actedpanchwitnesswasestablishedbeingusedthreetimesinthe saidMIDCunit In the reported ruling it was observed that the prosecution has failed to establish about the reliability of the evidenceofpanchwitnesses. 2. 2000(5) Bom.C.R.585 Between LalchandYadav V/s. StateofMaharashtra. The additional Sessions Judge, Greater, Bombay in SessionCaseNo.1242/1992convictedandsentencedtheaccused toundergone imprisonment for life for theoffence under section 302ofIPCagainstwhichtheaccusedhasfiledanappeal. Inthiscasetheobservationrelatingtothepublicpanchof recoverywasahabitualpanchwitness.Inhiscrossexaminationhe hasadmittedthathemighthaveactedasapanchasonceortwice andpostbeforetheCourt.Thesaidevasiveanswerbyhiminthe viewoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtgoesagainsthiscredibility.The PSIhasalsoansweredthatitmaybepossiblethatonceortwicethe panchwitnessmighthaveactedasapanchearlier.Onthatground

20

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

itwasobservedthatthepoliceofficerwastogivestraightforward answerandwhenhedoesnotgiveitbutgivestheevasiveanswerit becomesverydifficultforthemtoaccepthisevidenceanditwas observed that it was extremely unsafe to place reliance on the recoveryevidence. 26. different. 27. Theaccusedhasadmittedinthestatementundersection I have gone this reported ruling. The ratio laid of this

rulingarenotapplicabletothepresentcaseasthefactsaretotally

313ofCr.P.C.inthiscasethepartofthearticleswereseizedfrom hispossession on8/4/2007. Inthecrossexamination thepanch witnesshasstickupwithhisevidenceinthechiefexamination.He hasonlysupportedtotheprosecutioncasethatattehtimeofraidat GangaLodgehewaspresentthereandbeforehimthepolicehave donethepersonalsearchoftheaccusedaswellashisroomandthe 14 articles were seized before him as per the drawn panchnama Exh.88. 28. Inthecrossexamination oftheinvestigatingofficerthe much more questions were asked relating to the drawing of the panchnama that the panchnama was drawn in the crime branch officerwherethesignaturesofthehabitualpanchwitnesseswere obtained. There is nothing brought on the record to discard and disbelievetheraiddonebytheinvestigatingofficeralongwithAPI Mr. Phuge, complainant and panch witnesses at Ganga Lodge, RoomNo.3.

21

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

29.

Theaccusedhasnotofferedanyexplanationinrespectof

the documents recovered from his possession. If we perused the cross examination of teh complainant then panch witness Mr. Pawar,Investigatingofficerthereisnocrossexaminationaboutthe denialsofthegivenevidence oftheseizerofdocuments articles, collectedbytheaccusedandfoundinhispossession. 30. Theprosecutionhascomebeforethecourtthattheyhave

seizedthedocumentsCds,photographsfromthepossessionofthe accusedinviewofexh.88whichisdulyproved.Thesaidseized documents from the possession of the accused are the classified documentsandalsothephotographsareofthemilitaryortheArmy related.TheinvestigatingofficerhasissuedaletterinviewofExh. 161 to the General officer, Commending in chief, Headquarter SouthernCommand,Pune.Theopinionofclassifieddocumentsand photographswascalled.Theopiniononthefollowingpointswere called. (i) (ii) Natureofdocuments. Istheinformationcontainedinthedocuments,if disclosedtounauthorizedpersoncannbeprejudicialto thesafety,security,andinterestoftheState, (iii) Whethertheinformation/photographscontainedcanbe directly or indirectly useful to an enemy country (the wordenemyincludesapotentialenemywithwhomthe countrymightbeatwaratsomefuturedate) (iv) Is the information /photographs contained directly or

22

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

indirectly connected wtih the defence matters of the country. 31. The opinion is given by B.Mathew Lieutenant Colonel,

General Staff Officers Grade 1 (Intelligence) For General Officer Commandinginchiefasunder: (a) (b) Thedocumentsareofclassifiednature. Thedisclosingoftheinformationcontainedinthe documentstounauthorizedpersonscancausebreachof security. (c) (d) Theinformationcontainedcanbeofusetotheenemyof tehcountry. Theinformationcontainedintheteledirectoryis connectedtothedefenceforces. 32. AtExh.36thedocumentwasseizedfromthepossession

oftheaccusedwasinrespectoftheSTDcodesandCIVJNNosof MILEXCHs.InthesaiddocumenttheArmy,NavalandAirforce information of their offices, residence, hospitals is given. The opiniongivenbytheLieutenantColonelthatthesaidinformation teledirectoryisconnectedtothedefenceforcesandwhichcanbe used to the enemy of the country. The opinion is given that the recovereddocumentsareclassifiedinnature. 33. TheaccusedisastudentoftheAnnasahebMagarCollege,

for his character the investigation is also done. At Exh. 118 the

23

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

letter is addressed to the Poona District Education Association CollegeofEngineeringdated13/4/2007requestingtosubmitthe formfillupbytehaccusedatthetimeofadmissionenclosedwith hismarklistandalsohisattendancelistverifiedcopy.Thecollege ofEngineeringPunehassubmittedthecopyoftheapplicationgiven bytheaccusedtothecollegeatthetimeofadmissioninwhichthe Marksobtainedasphysics58,chemistry55,maths37,PCM300, theapplicationwasdated15/9/2004. AtExh.120theapplication foradmission forsecondyeardegree course isproduced.Atexh. 121 the examination mark list of the month of May 2006 is produced.Exh.122themarklistfortheexaminationofNovember 2006isproduced.Hegot83marksoutof750. Exh.121onits backsidealetterwrittenbytheaccusedisexisting.Inwhichhehas writtenthathewasabletofilluphisfeesashisfatherisnotin Indiaandthereissomeserviceproblem. 34. At Exh. 123 the duplicate copy of school leaving

certificate issued by Bokaro Ispat Senior Secondary school is producedonrecord.Exh.124isanaffidavitgivenbytheaccused fortheadmissionfortheyear200102.Hehasalsotakenagapfor theperiod200203.AtExh.126aletterdated5/4/2007addressed to the Principal regarding recommendation letter He wanted to appearforInternationalEnglishLanguageTestingSystemforfuture academichelp.Theaccusedhasadmittedallthesedocumentsand theledevidencebytheprosecutionproducedatexh.119to126.At Exh.127theattendancecopyoftheaccusedfortheyear200607is producedonrecord.InthisyeartheaccusedhasgoneatPakistan

24

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

on14/10/2006andon23/1/2007theaccusedisremainedinthe absentinthecollege.Hisattendancesheetismarkedasexh.127 (1)to127(6)admittedbytheaccused. 35. The accused who has obtained the passport from the

RanchiinviewExh.128thepassportofficerRanchihasrepliedat exh.167.Itwasintimatedthedateofissueofhispassportwason 7/3/2005anditwasissuedonthebasisofvalidoldpassport. 36. Fromtheevidenceofthisdocumentsitisclearthatthe

accused who has come here and admitted in Annasaheb Magar Collegewasnotattendingthecollegeregularly. 37. HehadgoneatPakistanfortwotimeswhichisnotdenied

byhim.Theprosecutionhasbroughtonrecordtheevidenceofthe AirlineticketsobtainedbytheaccusedfromRiyaTravelsofAirlines. At exh. 139 the invoice copy of Riya Travel of Airlines Pakistan InternationalhavingticketNo.2638578756inthenameofaccused wasbooked. Thesaidticketisdated9/12/2006forthetraveling date23/01/2007.Exh.140isthereceiptofthecashpayment.Exh. 141 is the ticket from Pune to Karachi. During the course of statementundersection313ofCr.P.C.theaccusedhasanswered thathisfatherisacompanyagentWilfley,hisfatherusedtosend himRs.8,000/toRs.10,000/permonthmoney.Theaccusedhas admitted that he has received the money transfer through the westernunionmoneytransfervideanswerinthequestionno.175 andalsointhequestionno.21. AtExh.145thelistofwestern

25

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

money transfer is produced on record. It shows that the Fatima Sallahudin Sha as well as Mohammad Sallahudin Sha sent the amounttotheaccused.Thedatesofmoneysendingareasunder: Date 12/8/2006 18/10/2006 23/8/2006 31/8/2006 12/9/2006 18/9/2006 22/9/2006 25/9/2006 27/12/2006 38. Sendername Fatima Fatima Mahd.Salauddin Fatima Fatima Fatima Fatima Fatima Mam.Sallahudin Amount Rs.10000/, Rs.2287.45 Rs.16,000/ Rs.10,000/ Rs.2500/ Rs.4,500/ Rs.5,956.43 Rs.5,000/ Rs.1,000/

ThesaidamountwassentfromthecityKarachifromthe

sameaddressofFlatno.14,BlockNo.A,FirstFloor,SunnyPride,J andfromtheanotheraddressFlatNo.14,SunnyPrideBlockNo.A Gulistan EJ, Karachi, thereceiver name ismentioned asaccused. The receivers address is a different places .i.e. Saipurva Hostel, Pune, Hotel Baramputra Prabhaganj, New Delhi, hotel Sangatrvganj New Delhi. The said amount is received by the accusedadmittedwhosenameisexistinginthesaidinformationlist Exh.145.FromthisdocumentitappearsthatheusedtogoatDelhi andresidinginthehotel. 39. Theaddressmentionedinexh.145isoneandthesameis

existing on the envelopes Exh. 39, 40 the white colour envelope admittedbytheaccusedreceivedinthenameofRaj.

26

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

40.

TheaccusedusedtocallatPakistan.Accordingtohimhe

usedtocallbyhisownmobileNo.ofhutchcompanymobileno. 9823413471. The DCP Mr. Kumbhare has called the details in respectofcallatPakistan.Ithasalsocomeintheevidencehehad alsocontactedtothePakistanHighCommissionatDelhiandcalled atPakistanonthismobilenumber.Theaccusedhasansweredinteh affirmativeinthequestionsNo.169and170understatementunder section313ofCr.P.C.Theprosecutionhasproducedonrecordat Exh.163alettergiventotehDirectorofPakDivision,MiyaAkbar HotelDelhiaskingthephotographsofthestaffMr.SayeedTirmizi andAbdulLatifJavedandtheirparticularpostings.AtExh.164the photographs of Tirmizi and Abdul Latif members of Pak High Commission provided. AT Exh. 170 the photograph of Sayeed TirmiziandatExh.171thephotographofAbdulLatifareproduced. In respect of these two accused the query was made by the complainant in view of Exh. 165. The accused has given a statementundersection313ofCr.P.C.andgiventhestatement that there is no person by name Hafizi the police have no proof about the existence of any personality by name Hafizi. He has admitted that he used to call to teh Pakistan Embassy, customer care for his visa information. There is documentary evidence producedonrecordbytheprosecutionthataccusedusedtogoat Delhiresideinthehotel,receivethemoneysentfromthePakistan. TheHafiziandAbudlLatifwereworkingatDelhi.' 41. Thesaidevidencebroughtonrecordbytheprosecution establishes that the accused was having the connection with the PakistanHighCommission.

27

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

42.

Itisalsocaseoftheprosecutionthattheaccusedusedto

call at Pakistan. At Exh. 134 the letter was addressed to the Manager of Hutch mobile company to get teh details, with the locationactivationofthecelloftehaccusedNo.9823413471.At Exh.134thesaidletterissuedbyAnilKumbhareDCPisproduced. ThelettergivingincomingandoutgoingdetailsfromJanuary are given. There were 74 outgoing calls to the Pakistan Phone No. 923002592314 outgoing 17 92300360021 outgoing 51 and incoming3,923002386994fiveoutgoing,9232121241717,Mobile No.9899756401,SMSfour.AtExh.136thedetailsofthecallare produced. At Exh. 132 a letter issued by Anil Kumbhare, DCP, crime branch, Pune city calling the details of the five numbers addressedtotheAirtelmobileisproduced.TheFivenumbersare 9860179763, 9860489816, 9890546863, 98906611656, 9890217996. The details of the Airtel call on these numbers in whichthenumberofaccusedisexisting.ThedetailsfromtheBSNL companywerealsocalledbyissuingaletterbyAnilKumbhareto theManageraboutthelandlineNo.26997427. Theaccusedhas admittedthecallsfromthisnumbertothePakistaninthestatement undersection313.AtExh.147thelettergivenbyBSNLcompanyof Mr. D. M. Purandare about the 31 calls to the mobile no. 9230025923141 are produced. From this document produced by theAirtelcompany,HutchCompany,andBSNLitappearsthatthe accusedwashavingtheconnectionwiththePakistanandheusedto call at Pakistan and also Vice Versa call from Pakistan to the accused.

28

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

43.

At Exh. 150 the letter addressed to Bhandoriya

Commandant,CommandantIntelligenceOfficer,HQ,Mumbaiwas issued.InrespectofinquiryofoneRatnakarDube.AtExh.151a notificationinrespectofsuspectofRatnakarDubeinthecrimeis produced on record. At Exh. 152 is a search warrant issued by CommissionerofPolicePuneundersection11ofOfficialSecretAct aboutauthorizationgiventoMr.Bargetosearchtheresidenceof RatnakarDubewasdated19/4/2007.AtExh.154alettertothe DirectorofNavelTrainingKhadakwaslaabouttheinquiryofDube requestforfurnishingdetailofNDAPostingwascalled.According totheinvestigatingofficerhehasdonetheinvestigationwiththe accusedwashavingtheconnection.On20/4/2007theinvestigating officerrecordedthe statementofRatnkarDube whohadgiven a statementthatfortwotimestheaccusedhadvisitedtheNDAwhen hewaspostedthere.Thestatementwasalsogiventhataccusedhas promised togive admission to hisniece intheAnnasaheb Magar CollegeanditwasfoundthattheRatnakardubewasnothavingany nexuswiththeaccused.Thesaidevidenceofinvestigatingofficerin para46isnowherechallengedinthecrossexamination.Thusfrom theevidenceonrecorditisclearthatthedocumentscollectedby the accused and found in possession of which the investigating officer has drawn the panchnama exh. 88 where the documents comingundertheSecracyandsecurityofthenation. 44. Thedocumentswhichwereobtainedfromthepossession

of the accused for the purpose of prejudicial to the safety and integrity of the India. The definition of the document under the

29

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

officialSecretAct,1923isgivenundersection2whichIwouldlike toreproduceonrecord. 45. Itisalsonecessarytoconsiderthedefinitionundersection

2(8)givenintheOfficialSecretActinrespectofthephotographs, thentheundevelopedfilmsdefinedundertheAct.Thedefinitionof prohibitedplaceisalsogivenwhichIwouldliketoreproduceitas under: (8)Prohibitedplacemeans (a)anyworkofdefence,arsenal,naval,militaryorair forceestablishmentorstation,mineminefield,camp,ship oraircraftbelongingtoto,oroccupiedbyoronbehalfof Government, any military telegraph or telephone so belongingoroccupied,anywirelessorsignalstationor officesobelongingoroccupiedandanyfactory,dockyard orotherplacesobelongingoroccupiedandusedforthe purpose of building, repairing, making or storing any munitions of war, or any sketches, plans, models or documentsrelatingthereto,orforthepurposeofgetting anymetals,oilormineralsofuseintimeofwar. 46. Inthiscasetheaccusedwhohascomebeforethiscourt

thathewashavingloveaffairwithagirlPakistanwithwhomhehas chatted. That the accused was sitting in the cyber cafe. The prosecutionhasexaminedthewitnessNamdeoN.KunjeeratExh. 77.ThesaidpanchwitnessisonthepointofseizeroftheSIMcard ofAirtelcompanyontehmemorandumstatementgivenbyhim.At Exh.77thewitnesshasnarratedthathehadgoneatcrimebranch Pune,.Theaccusedwaspresentthere.AnotherpanchSunilBarne waspresentthere.Accusedhasgivenamemorandumstatementand asperhismemorandumstatementtheyhadgoneatIconNetCafe

30

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

atKothrud.Thememorandumstatementgivenbytheaccusedisat exh.63.Thepanchnamaisdrawnundersection27ofevidenceAct. AsperthestatementgivenbytheaccusedVishalkumar.Thereisa search in the Icon Net cafe. That memorandum panchnama isat Exh. 64. The accused has produced the concealed SIM cards of Airtel company. If we perused the cross examination the cross examinationdoesnotdiscardthepanchnamadrawnbythepolice undersection 27ofEvidence Act.ThewitnessfromthesaidNet cafe Subham Yadav is examined at exh. 80. According to this witnesstheaccusedusedtocometotheirnetcafe.Hehasrequested tokeephis two suitcases till hewill gettheaccommodation. On 14/2/2007Vishalkumarhadcometotheirnetcafe.Hehasdone chatting work on Yahoo messengers. Again he had come on 21/2/2007. Thewitnesshasaskedhimtotakehistwosuitcases keptintheshop.Butthereafteron21/4/2007thepolicehadcome there. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses as there is no cross examination or denials of the statementsgivenbythewitnessesinthecrossexamination. 47. TherecoveryoftheSIMcardonthestatementmadeby

teh accused during investigation is admissible in evidence under section27oftheEvidenceAct. 48. In respect of his chatting work the letter was issued

throughtheCybercrimecell,crimebranch,Puneaddressedtothe AntiExtortionsquadbyreferringtheEmaildocumentsobtainedby them.Thesaidletterisatexh.137.AtExh.138fromthepages2to

31

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

80 the Email record is produced on record. If we see the Email record on the pages343there isaEmaildated13/8/2006 from SadiyaFatimaSadiyaPakgirlinwhichthereiscontentionofthe sendingofRs.10,000/anditsbifurcationoftheincurredexpenses. Thepage341Emaildated2/11/2006fromSadiyaFatimarelatedto thenatureofworktobedonebyapersonbeingunderanytypeof educationbutitisnotrelatedtoanyloveaffairs. 49. TheEmailcontactspageNo.355theletterisgivenbyone

FatimaaddressedtoJogWilson,subjectisforadmissionwhereinit is mentionedthatthisisFatimamybrotherisdoingEngineering fromPuneUniversity,India,heisstudinginSecondYearandhe wantstotransferoverthere.ThenameofVishalkumaralongwith hiscontactnumbersisgiven.FromtehsaidcontentsofEmailitcan beinferredthattherewasarelationbetweenFatimaSallahudinSha andtheaccused.FatimaiscallingVishalkumarasabrotherwhere asVishalkumarsayingFatimaishislover. 50. Accordingtotheprosecutionthattheaccusedwashaving

contactwiththeSallahudinSha.AtExh.76oneShaikhManchar Imamarulhudaisexamined.HeisMaulanaImmamShainMazid Hadapsar,Pune.Heknowstheaccusedwhohadgonetohiminteh month of May, June 2005 in Shahin Mazid. The witness has narrated that accused told him that he was taking education in AnnasahebMagarCollegeAtHadapsarandhewashavinglovewith agirlofPakistan.Hetoldhimthathewantedtochangehisreligion inMuslimandhewantedtomarrywiththatgirl.Thewitnesshas

32

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

refusedtodothatwork.Againtheaccusedtwodaysafterrequested himtotalkwithafatherofthegirlofPakistan.Hence,theyhad goneatSTDboothofAnnasahebMagarCollege.Accordingtothe witnesshetalkedwiththefatherofthegirlatKarachi.Fatherhas toldhimthathehadtaughthimKalmaandchangedhisreligion. Thereafter witness left teh place and returned to Mazid. The investigating officer hastold thatMaulanahasgiven astatement thatthefatherofthatgirltoldthattheyhavechangedhisreligion andkepthisnameasBilal.IntheEmailrecordthereisareference ofBilal. 51. In the 313 statement of Cr. P. C. teh accused had

admittedthathehadtalkedwithMaulanaandalsotheirtalkwith thefatherofgirlofPakistan.Theansweregivenbytheaccusedin theaffirmativeareinquestionno.80,,81and83. 52. Theprosecutionhasalsoproducedonrecordtheaccused

visittotheGangaCybercafe,Deccan.AtExh.71(1)to71(16)the attendanceoftheaccusedinthecybercafeisproducedonrecord. TheevidenceoftheownerofGangaCyberCafeofRavirajJadhavis nowherechallengedinthecrossexamination.Theaccusedhasalso residedatAmbikaLodgeon29/3/2006.TheroomNo.45/2Awas providedtotheaccused.TheentryatSr.No.2328intheregisterin theregularcourseistakenwhereintehaccusedhasmadetheentry ofhismobileno.9823413471.thesaiddocumentisatexh.74.

33

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

53.

AfterthearrestedoftheaccusedhewastakentoNarco

testing.TheletterissuedbythecomplainanttothePoliceInspector for Narco test is at exh. 61, a letter addressed to the medical VictoriabycomplainantisatExh.62. 54. Inrespectofreceivingtheinformationconfidentiallythe

argumentsweresubmittedonbehalfoftheaccusedthatfromwhere the information was received that evidence is not brought on record. The API Mr. Barge is interested to get publicity, raid, investigationisbogus.IfweperusedtheevidenceofInvestigating Officer he has done the investigation thoroughly. Since the threshold of the case the investigation is legally sequence and properlydone.Thestatementsof11witnesseswererecordedunder section 164 of Cr. P. C. of which evidence is at Exh.193. The statement of Dnyneshwar, Raviraj, Yogesh, Mandar Mithilesh, Laxman Niteshkumar, Bijli, Pramod recorded. According to the accusedMithileshkumarstatementsupportingtohim.Ifeelaccused couldhaveexaminedhimasdefencewitnesswhichisnotdone. 55. Theprovisionsofthesection13(3)oftheOfficialSecrets

Act,1923areinrespectofrestrictiononthetrialoftheoffences. Thesanctionisnecessary.AtExh.168prosecutionsanctionletter issued by Virendra Kumar, Under Secretary dated 2/7/2007 is produced.Theprovisionsofsection13(3)whichareasfollows 13.Restrictionontrialofoffences:(1)Nocourt(other than that of a Magistrate of the first class specially empoweredinthisbehalfbythe(appropriateGovernment

34

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

), which is inferior to that of a District or Presidency Magistrate,shalltryanyoffenceunderthisAct. (3)Nocourtshalltakecognizanceofanyoffenceunder thisActunlessuponcomplaintmadebyorderof,orunder authorityfrom,the(AppropriateGovernment)orsome officerempoweredbythe(appropriateGovernment)in thisbehalf. 56. The Dy. Commissioner of Police have filed teh

chargesheet through the investigating officer Mr. Bhanupratap Barge.Inrespectofreceivingtheinformationconfidentiallyandnot examiningthepersonwhohasgiventheinformationtheadvocate for the accused has drawn my attention towards two reported rulings 1. 1983Cri.L.J.1276(1)SupremeCourt, Between BhagdomalGangaramandothers V/s. StateofGujaratandothers. Theaccusedwasconvictedundersection65(A)readwith section81ofBombayProhibitionAct.Therevisionwas reversed.TheirLordshipsobservedthattheevidenceof admissibilitycomesandwhenthewitnesstestifyingasto information given to him about ( being a manager or truckinvolvedinthatcrimebyspecifiedpersonandthat laterpersonisnotexamined.Underthesecircumstances, ApexCourtobservedthattestimonyofthewitnessisnot admissible. CaseAppealNo.887/2007SupremeCourtofIndia between KanyaMishraV/s.StateofBihar.

2.

35

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

Inthiscasetheaccusedwasconvictedundersection302 ofIPChewassentencedtodeathandpayfineof Rs.5,000/.Inthiscasetherewereobservationsrelating totheinvestigationdonebytheInvestigatingOfficer.The accusedafteroccurrenceofallegedincidentabsconded fromhishouseandsurrenderedtothecourt.Theonly evidenceonthecircumstanceswasthattheinvestigating officerhasstatedthatduringthecourseofinvestigation he received secret information that the appellant was fleeing away wearing only the under garments and in orderotverifythesameleftthepolicestationalongwith thearmedforcesinsearchoftheaccused,wenttothe houseofMithikleshJha,atvillageMurali,wherehewas informed that Chandra Mishra father of applicant had gonethereinsearchofhimandheishavingnotforthere to the place of other relatives for searching him. This witnessnowherestatedthatfromwhomhereceivedthe secretinformationinasmuchassuchinformationcannot bemadeabasistoprovehiscircumstancesforbeingused againsttheappellant. 57. Theserulingsarerelatedtotheconfidentialinformation

i.e. Secret information from whom it is received and there is no explanationforthesame.Inthiscasetheinformationreceivedby theinvestigatingofficerisconfidentialandhehasrefusedtogive thenameofpersongivingthesaidinformationinthesafetyofthe personprovidedtheinformation.Theargumentssubmittedbythe Advocatefortheaccusedthattojusttogetpublicitynobodywilldo suchtypeofdeepinvestigationininterestofsecurityofanation.I donotagreewithtehargumentsubmittedbytheAdvocateforteh accused. 58. The accused whoischargedundersection 3ofOfficial

Secrets Act. The section 3 of the Official secret Act is for the

36

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

penaliiesforspyingandalsoforprejudicialactagainstthesafety andinterestoftheState.Iwouldliketoreproducethecontentsof section3asunder: Section(3):Penaltiesforspying: (1)Ifanypersonforanypurposeprejudicialtothesafety orinterestofthestate (a)approaches,inspects,passesoverorisinthevicinity of,orenters,anyprohibitedplaceor (b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculatedtobeormightbeorisintendedtobe,directly orindirectly,usefultoanenemy;or (c)obtains,collects,recordsorpublishesor communicatestoanyotherpersonanysecretofficialcode orpassword,oranysketch,planormodel,article,noteor otherdocumentorinformationwhichiscalculatedtobe ormight beorisintendedtobe directlyorindirectly, usefultoanenemy [orwhichrelatestoamatterthe disclosureofwhichislikelytoaffectthesovereigntyand integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relationswiththeForeignStates]heshallbepunishable withimprisonmentforatermwhichmayextend,where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence,arsenal,naval,militaryorairforceestablishment orstation,mine,minefield,factory,dockyard,camp,ship oraircraftorotherwiseinrelationtothenaval,militaryor airforceaffairsofGovernmentorinrelationtoanysecret officialcode,tofourteenyearsandinothercasestothree years. (2) On a prosecution for an offence punishable under sectionitshallnotbenecessarytoshowthattheaccused personwasguiltyofanyparticularacttendingtoshowa purposeprejudicialtothesafetyorinterestoftheState, and,notwithstandingthatnosuchactisprovedagainst him,hemaybeconvictedif,fromthecircumstancesof thecaseorhisconductorhisknowncharacterasproved, itappearsthathispurposewasapurposeprejudicialto thesafetyorinterestsoftheState,ifanysketch,plan, model,article,note,document,orinformationrelatingto

37

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

orusedinanyprohibitedplace,orrelatingtoanythingin suchaplace,oranysecretofficialcodeorpasswordis made,obtained,collectedrecorded,publishedor communicatedbyanypersonotherhanapersonacting underlawfulauthority,andfromthecircumstancesofthe caseorhisconductorprejudicialcharacterasprovedit appearsthathispurposewasapurposeprejudicialtothe safetyorinterestsofthestate,suchsketch,plan,model, article, note document, information, code or password shallbepresumedtohavebeenmade,obtainedcollected, recorded, published, or communicated for a purpose prejudicialtothesafetyorinterestsoftheState. 59. Theprovisionsofsection 9oftheOfficialSecretAct of Section9officialSecretsAct.Attempts,incitements,etc. Anypersonwhoattemptstocommitorabetsthe commissionofanoffenceunderthisActshallbe punishablewiththesamepunishment,andbeliabletobe proceeded against in the same manner as if he had committedsuchoffence. 60. In respect of section 9 of the Official Secret Act, it is

whichprovisionsareasfollows

arguedthatthoughaccusedfoundinpossessionofdocumentsthere isnoevidenceofsendingittoPakistan.Hemighthavechangedhis mind and for this the Advocate for the accused has drawn my attentiontowardsthereportedrulings 1. 1997Cri.L.J.1660 Between JagmohanAliasManoharLal V/s. StateofU.P. In this case the accused was convicted by the Special JudicialMagistrateundersection3readwithsection7of the Essential Commodities Act, for contravening the

38

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

provisionsofU.P.PaddyandRiceOrder,1970andhe wassentencedtoundergoRIfortwoyearsandpayfineof Rs.26,407/andindefaultoffinetoundergofurtherRI for three months. The trial Magistrate acquitted the driverofthebusbutconvictedtheconductorofthebus andownerofthericebags.Theconvictionandsentence of both were set aside an appeal filed by the present applicant Jagmohan dismissed and his conviction and sentencebothweremaintainedby3rdAdditionalDistrict Judge. Against that order revision was filed. Their Lordshipsobservedthatinorderthatthepersonmaybe convictedofanattempttocommitcrime.Hemustshown firsttohave,hadandintentiontocommitanoffenceand secondlytohavedonetheactwhichconstitutestheactus reaofcriminalattempt.Thetestofdeterminingwhether act of the accused person constituted an attempt or preparationiswhethernortactsalreadydonearesuch thatifanoffenderchangeshismindanddoesnotproceed furtherinitsprogress.Theaccusedalreadydonewould becompletelyharmless.Itwasheldofseizeroftruckof paddyinterritoryofPunjabcannotbesaidtobeexport withinthemeaningofpara2oftheorder,onthebasisof thisobservationsitwasarguedbytheAdvocateforthe accusedthatinthiscasetheprovisionsofsection9are notattractedasthereisnoattempt.Whentheattempt willbefulfilledwhenthereishavingintention.According totheprosecutioncaseinthenearfuturesothereisno specificdatementionedinthecomplaintnoranyevidence isonrecord.Theenvelopewhichisseizedisnothaving the handwriting of the accused and the accused has deniedtheexistinghandwritingontheenvelope.Thereis nohandwritingexpertopinion.Itisarguedthat presumingthathewaspossessingthedocumentbuthe mighthavechangedhismindandhehasnotmadeany attempttocommitanoffenceofsendingitoutsidehence, thereisnooffence. 2. Secondly, he had drawn my attention towards the

reportedrulings

39

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

1970AIR713 Between MalkiatSinghandAnr. V/s. StateofPunjab Inthiscasealsotheoffenceundersection3and7ofthe EssentialCommoditiesAct.Thetruckcarryingpaddywas stoppedbythepoliceofPunjabStateanditwasobserved whetheranyoffencecommittedbythedriverofthetruck, Their Lordships observed that no offence has been committed by the Appellant nor was there attempt to committheoffenceasthepaddywasseizedwellinside thePunjabboundaryandtherewasnoexportofpaddy outside the State of Punjab. It was also possible that appellantsmighthavechangedtheirmindatanyplace betweentheplaceofseizerandthestateofboundary. The acts of the appellants then would only constitute preparationandnotanattempttocommitanoffenceof export because the test of determining whether acts constitute merely preparation and not an attempt is whethertheovertactalreadydonearesuchthatifthe offenderchangeshismindanddoesnotproceedfurther theactsalreadydonewouldbecompletelyharmless.

61.

Theratiolaiddowninthesaidrulingsarenotapplicable

to the present case as prosecution has proved the offence under section3andalsoprovedtheoffenceundersection9oftheOfficial SecretAct,1923. 62. The accused is charged punishment for criminal

conspiracy. In thiscase theevidence producedon recordbythe prosecution established that the accused hatched in the criminal conspiracy with teh sallahudin Sha and Tirmizi and Javed and pursingtothesamehehascommittedanoffenceundersection3by

40

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

collecting the secret information of teh nation. The secret Act indicatesthatitsprovisionsareessentiallyconcernwiththesecurity andsovereigntyofIndia..Underthegarboftheloveaffairwitha girl of Pakistan the accused attempted to handover the secret informationofthenationwhichisadangerousactontehpartof the accused. The prosecution has established teh guilt of the accusedundersection3,and9oftheOfficialSecretAct,1923and also established the criminal conspiracy with the sallahudin Sha, TirmiziandAbdulLatifoftehabscondedaccused. 63. The accused who has come before the court that he is

student of second year engineering college and leaving in the SaipurvaHostel,whatwasthenecessitytoresidehimatdifferent lodgesatPune,GangaLodge,AmibkaLodge,PrabhatLodgeinview ofExh.160entrymadeintheprabhatlodgeofRoomNo.106.His visitsareatDelhi.ReceivedthemoneyfromtheWesternUnionat Delhi.HehasalsoresidedatDelhi.ThetwoaccusedAbdulLatifand TirmiziwerestaffmembersworkingatDelhi. 64. The evidence on record substantiate that the said

collecteddocumentsweresecretofMilitary,religiousplaceofIndia, the accused having intention to send from India to Pakistan consideringtheentiregameteofconspiracyundersection120Bof IndianPenalCodeand aroleplayedbytheaccusedofcollecting theinformationofthemilitary,Punecityisaultimateachievement ofcommongoalofconspiracy.

41

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

TheprovisionsofSection120BofIPCisthepunishment forthecriminalconspiracy.Theelementsofthecriminalconspiracy requiredtobeconsideredthat(a)anobjectistobeaccomplished (b)aplanorschemeembodiedmeanstoaccomplishedthatobject and(c)agreementorunderstandingbetweentwoormorepersons whereby they become definitely committed cooperate for the accomplishment for the object and means embodied in the agreement / understand. (d) In the jurisdiction where a statute requireandovertact. 65. Evidence shows that the accused was in thick of

conspiracy. The illegal act of accused is of collection of secret documentsandhavingcommongoaltosenditPakistanwherehe has admitted visited for two times as on 14/10/2006 and 23/1/2007 with thefather ofalleged girl Fatima, sallahudin Sha andothertwoabscondedaccusedAbdulLatifandTirmizi. 66. It is clear that the accused has committed an offence

againsttehsafety,securityoftehnation.BeingastudentofAnna SahebMagarEngineeringCollege,underthefalseconcoctedlove affairhewantedtomisguidethepeopleofthenation.Ifreallythe workingwomanFatimawashavingloveaffairwiththisaccusedand theyweregoingtomarryshemighthavecome,butnotshenorher fathersallahudinShahadcomebeforethecourttoexplainthereal truth.Idonotbelievethestoryofaccused.Bycommunicatingthe secret information as discussed above including the photographs, CDs and I hold that he liable to be punished for the offences

42

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

punishable under section 3,9 of Official Secret Act and 120B of IndianPenalCode.Forthisreasonthepointsfordeterminationnos. 1to3areansweredintheaffirmative. 67. Astheaccusedheldguiltypunishableundersection3,9

oftheOfficialSecretActandundersection120BofIPC.Heisliable forpunishment. 68. same. une. (Mrs.SuchitraS.Ghodke) Dt.29/03/2011.ChiefJudicialMagistrate, Pune. 69. Theaccusedhasbeenbroughtbeforeme.Ihaveinformed Beforeimposingthepunishmentaccusedisrequiredtobe

heardonthepointofsentence.HenceIhavetakenpauseforthe

himthegistofthejudgmentandalsointimatedhimthathehas beenheldguiltyforthechargesleveledagainsthimandopportunity isgiventohimtoheardhimonthepointofsentence.Advocatefor theaccusedMr.KatoreR.V.isalsopresentinthecourthall.APP Mr.P.B.GaikwadisalsopresentintheCourt. 70. Heardtheaccusedinpersonwhohassubmittedthathis

fatherisparalyze,twosistersaredependentonhim.Hence,lenient viewmaykindlybetaken.Advocatefortheaccusedhassubmitted thattheaccusedisinJailfromtheyear2007.Theageofaccused maybeconsidered.Thefamilyoftheaccusedisdependentonhim

43

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

as he is the alone earning member in the family. Hence, lenient viewmaykindlybetaken.APPhassubmittedthattheactofthe accusedisagainstthenation.Theoffenceschargedagainsthimare dulyprovedhence,maximumpunishmentmaybegiven. 71. Afterhearingtheaccused,hisadvocateandAPPIfeelthat

a student, accused who was admitted by his parents in the AnnasahebMagarEngineeringcollegeforhisfuture.Hehadcome atPunealongwithpassportobtainedfromtheRanchioftheyear 2005. The activities of the accused brought on record by the prosecution are the anti social activities against the security and sovereigntyofthenation.Theaccusedis28yearsoldatthistimein viewofthestatementgivenundersection313ofCr.P.C.ason 17/2/2011.Theoffenceschargedagainsttheaccusedprovedbythe prosecutionbydoingtheinvestigationintheinterestofthenation. AlreadyIhaveobservedthatbytakingpainsfordoingsuchtypeof investigationandobtainingthesanctionfromtheGovernmentand filing the case within time isnot only thedutygoes towards for gettingthepublicityinthesociety.Theinvestigatingofficerhasalso donethedeepinvestigationwhichcauseresulttobringhomethe guilt of the accused on record. A student of engineering college doing such type of activities against the nation is also shameful. However,consideringhisage,prayerandtheoffenceprovedagainst himIfeeltheorderofsentencewillmeettheendsofjustice.Inthe result,

44

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

ORDER 1. The accused Vishalkumar Premchand Upadhyaya is herebyconvictedundersection248(2)ofCriminalProcedureCode fortheoffencepunishableundersection3,9oftheOfficialSecret Act,1923andundersection120BofIndianPenalCode. 2. TheaccusedisherebysentencedtosufferR.I.Forseven years for the offence punishable under section 3 of the official SecretAct1923. 3. TheaccusedisherebysentencedtosufferR.I.Forseven years for the offence punishable under section 9 of the official SecretAct,1923. 4. TheaccusedisherebysentencedtosufferR.I.forseven yearsfortheoffencepunishableundersection120BoftheIndian PenalCode. 5. All sentences shall run concurrently in view of the provisionsofsection427ofCr.P.C. 6. The period of detention undergone by the accused is givensetoffagainstthesentencesofimprisonmentundersection 428ofCr.P.C. 7. Themuddemalproperty12CdsoutofwhichthetwoCds of religious places of Pune city and the Army buildings and 48 photographs be given in the custody of the Southern Command, Puneafterappealperiodisover. 8. The Indian Passport bearing No. 1863965 and the PakistanVisaoftheaccusedisherebycanceledandbesenttothe passportauthoritiesforthenecessaryorderafterappealperiodis over. 9. Thewesternunionreceipts,Nokiacompanyhandset,two wristwatch,onedigitalcamerabeconfiscatedtotheGovernment afterappealperiodisover.

45

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

10. TheholyQuranbookbegiventotheschoollibraryAnglo UrduGirlsHighSchool,Puneafterappealperiodisover. 11. The muddemal property the military officers telephone numbersandotherinformationdocumentsbegiveninthecustody ofSouthernCommand,Puneafterappealperiodisover. 12. The muddemal property .i.e. photographs the girl of Pakistan,identitycardofaccusedofEngineeringcollege,thediary pageshavingPakistanaddresses,thebluecolourdiaryinwhichthe Urdu writing is there, the green pista colour envelope and other whitecolourenvelopes,twocdsofsonycompanyonwhichNDAis written,thenmosebearcompanyiswritten,onephotographoflord DagdusethHawaiMandir,KhadkiAmmunitionfactory,HAFactory, Bombay shopper, BEG Khadki photographs and others, the black leather valet, ten Cds the guide book of other state education, amazingcompanytwopens,onebluecolourhorizon2000company radio mirchi, the greeting cards, negatives of photograph of PakistanigirlandalsolettertoSallahudin,oneblackcolourbag,the cardreaderwriter,airtelcompanysimcardoneiswhiteandone red colour and the white colour plastic bag be destroyed after appealperiodisover. 13. The muddemal property cash of Rs.300/ and the Australiandollarcurrency beconfiscatedtotheGovernmentafter appealperiodisover. 14. The muddemal property register of Ganga Lodge be returnedtotheownerafterappealperiodisover.

Pune. (Mrs.SuchitraS.Ghodke) Dt.29/03/2011.ChiefJudicialMagistrate, Pune.

46

R. C. C. No. 2361/2007

IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisP.D.F.fileJudgmentaresame wordforwordasperoriginalJudgment. NameofSteno : PatilShivajiN. CourtName : ChiefJudicialMagistrate,Pune. Date : 29/03/2011 JudgmentsignedbyPresidingofficeron:30/03/2011 Judgmentuploadedon:31/03/2011