CASE TITLE – Rohan Tukaram Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli & State of Maharashtra (8th December, 2022)
DIVISION BENCH – REVATI MOHITE DERE and PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.
FIR REGISTERED IN – AKLUJ POLICE STATION, SOLAPUR
PUNISHMENT U/S. 3 OF THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923
A Writ petition was filed in Bombay High court under A. 226 of the Constitution of India and U/S. 482 of CrPC, the public prosecutor presented the case where he completely ignored the major legal issue that – “Is Police Station covered under States Act, 1923 or not”? The case of prosecution was based on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal and others (1992).
The incident took place when the petitioner was called in connection to a previous FIR registered against him in the same police station. When the Head Constable (Respondent – 1) was taking notes of the complaints, he found the petitioner taking photos of the police station, while he checked his phone he saw the photograph and lodged an FIR against him. This incident took place on 27th July, 2021 when petitioner had been to Police Station.
It is shocking to see a FIR been lodged for the alleged offence of taking photograph of Police Station from outside under the Act. S. 3 of the Act provides punishment for acts, prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, acts done affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India and so on. Prima facie, it has been malafidely invoked by the concerned Police. By no stretch of imagination, S. 3 could be invoked here in the present case.
It Is pertinent to note, that the definition of ‘prohibited place’ as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act, is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include ‘Police Station’ as one of the places or establishments.
How an F.I.R could have even been registered on the basis of the said photograph, that too, for a serious offence under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act? In fact, the Bombay HC in the case of Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay has held that even video recording made on the mobile phone within the Police Station whilst discussions are carried out would not attract ingredients of section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
Invocation of section 3 of the Act, which punishes for spying, can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked. It could impact one’s reputation, job, career and so on. It cannot be lightly invoked, to jeopardize someone’s life and career. Law cannot be misused / abused and must not be used as a tool for harassing or tormenting persons. It is the duty of the Police to protect people and act in accordance with law.
Registration of the offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, as against the petitioner, in the facts, is clearly an abuse of the process of law and if not quashed, would lead to serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be countenanced. It was even directed by the Court to the State Government to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. However, the said costs shall be recovered from the Salary of the person responsible for invoking the S. 3 of the said Act. And this cost is to be paid within 4 weeks of this order.
0 Comments