Video of Police Station
Ravindra S/O. Shitalrao Upadyay vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale, Valmiki Sa Menezes
913-APL615.21-Judgment.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLN. (APL) NO. 615 OF 2021
APPLICANT : Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay, Age-40
years, Occu. - Service, R/o. Dehankar
Layout, Sindhi (Meghe), Tahsil &
District Wardha.
-VERSUS-
NON-APPLICANT : State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.
Sawangi (Meghe), Tahsil & District
Wardha.
9. This Court has perused section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, which provides penalties for spying. It specifically states that a person would face penalty for spying if he commits an act as specified in sub-section (1) thereof. The relevant portion of the said provision is reproduced as follows:
"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 KHUNTE 913-APL615.21-Judgment.odt
(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 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 Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years."
10. In the context of the above quoted provision, the definition of 'prohibited place' as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act is relevant. It is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include Police Station as one of the places or establishments, which could be included in the definition 'prohibited place'. Considering the aforesaid provisions and proceeding on the basis of the statements made by witnesses during the course of investigation, in the backdrop of the allegation made by the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that none of the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the applicant. Therefore, this would be a fit case to allow the present application.
KHUNTE 913-APL615.21-Judgment.odt
11. In the judgment in the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another , in a similar situation, when video recording was made on the mobile phone, in the context of the offences punishable under sections 353 and 186 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court found that there was no material to invoke sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act. This Court is of the opinion that the allegations in the said case were far more serious than those made in the present case against the applicant.
12. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-1, which reads as follows.
"1. Exercise the inherent powers vested by virtue of section- 482 of Cr.P.C. and thereby quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing Crime no.-219/2018 dated-08/03/2018 for the offences punishable under Section - 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and consequent R.C.C. No.- 875/2019 thereto pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha."