C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants/accused have preferred this revision against the order of the Sessions Judge, Damoh, upholding the objection that certain documents are secret and cannot be ordered to be produced in view of section 14 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. ( 2 ) THE applicant No. 2 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Hindi Weekly Malay Anchal published from Indore. The applicant No. 1 is the local correspondent of the Weekly at Damoh. At the relevant time Gurubachan Singh Sahota was the, Superintendent of Police Damoh. The Weekly in its issue dated 12/7/1979 published an article under the caption Gurubachan Singh Sahota, Police Superintendent, Damoh, a corrupt and robber in police uniform, his misbehavior with Chamelibai. It was alleged that he is an incompetent and corrupt police officer, constructed a house worth a lakh or rupees at Sahdol, has been auctioning police stations, he has been frequently visiting the house of Chamelibai at Rajpura and misbehaved with her and tried to take liberty with her, she made a complaint against him to the State Government, inspite of refusal of loan, he is constructing another house at Jabalpur, in his bank accounts and that of his wife, Rs. 10,000. 00 is being deposited every month, it should be enquired as to from whom the money comes, he has transferred his subordinates for not-co-operating in his activities and crimes are on the increase. The Public Prosecutor, Damoh, after being authorised by the Law Department, filed a complaint under sections 500/501/120-B Indian Penal Code against the applicants for publishing the said article against Gurubachanbn Singh Sahota in their weekly. The complaint was registered and the applicants appeared in pursuance to the process issued. After recording statements of Gurubachan Singh Sahota and P. S. I. Dubey, charge under section 500 Indian Penal Code was framed against the applicant No. 1 and charges under sections 500 and 501 Indian Penal Code against the applicant No. 2. The case was then posted for cross-examination after charge. ( 3 ) ON 12. 5. 1981, the applicants filed an application for production of papers concerning (i) enquiry conducted by Shri Bhagchand Shukla. The case was then posted for cross-examination after charge. ( 3 ) ON 12. 5. 1981, the applicants filed an application for production of papers concerning (i) enquiry conducted by Shri Bhagchand Shukla. D. I. G. Police on the complaint of Chamelibai against Gurubachan Singh; and (ii) enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Vigilance Commission, Sagar about the purchase of the plot by Gurubachan Singh at Jabalpur. The application was not opposed and was allowed. On 17. 8. 1981, the Superintendent of Special Police Establishment, Sagar produced the enquiry papers concerning the purchase of plot at Jabalpur and later on inspection of these documents was given to the applicants. On 4. 2. 1982, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilence Commission produced two sealed packets concerning the enquiry papers against Gurubachan Singh but he claimed privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act. He was asked to file an affidavit in support. An objection supported by affidavit was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of police on 15. 3. 1982, claiming privilege that enquiry was going on against Gurubachan Singh under the Adhiniyam of 1981 and disclosing of the papers at this stage would affect the enquiry, evidence would not be forthcoming and it would be against public interest. The applicants replied saying that the documents are not privileged, enquiry has already given to the applicants after the order of the Court for production of the documents and Gurubachan Singh is well aware about the complaint made against him. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order upheld the objection that these are secret documents under section 14 (1) of the Adhiniyam and the same be returned to the office of the Lokayukt, Bhopal. However, the privilege claimed under section 123 of the Evidence Act was over-ruled; saying that enquiry papers about purchase of plot at Jabalpur were already submitted in Court and the parties got opportunity in inspecting the same and regarding enquiry papers on the complaint of Chamelibai the affidavit does not sufficiently state as to how the production would prejudice the affairs of the State. ( 4 ) THE Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 was published in the M. P. Rajpatra on 15. 10. 1981 and it came into force from 14. 2. 1982, the Lokayukt was appointed on 20- 2-1982 and the Uplokayukt on 25. 2. 1982. ( 4 ) THE Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 was published in the M. P. Rajpatra on 15. 10. 1981 and it came into force from 14. 2. 1982, the Lokayukt was appointed on 20- 2-1982 and the Uplokayukt on 25. 2. 1982. The Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt (Investigation) Rules, 1982 were published in the M. P. Rajpatra on 9. 6. 1982. The staff of the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt are required to be appointed under section 13 of the Act. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam gives jurisdiction to the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt to receive complaint or information and enquire into the allegations. Section 9 prescribes the procedure for enquiry. Under section 12 they have to submit reports to the competent authority. There in secrecy of information under section 14 (1) which says that any information, obtained by the Lokayukt or the Uplokayukt or members of their staff in the course of, or for the purposes of any investigation under this Act, and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall, be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, no Court shall be entitled to compel the Lokayukt or the Uplokayukt or any public servant to give evidence relating to such, information or produce the evidence so recorded or collected. Sub-section (2) gives the exceptions, with which we are not concerned here. Under section 20 all complaints pending before the Vigilence Commissioner immediately before the coming of this Act, shall, on such commencement, shall stand transferred to the Lokayukt or Uplokayukt as the case may be and shall be disposed of as if they were complaints entertained by him under this Act. Rule 16 prescribes that the public servant complained of has to be served with a copy of complaint or the statement of the grounds of information and he shall be given opportunity to inspect or copy of the affidavit of the complainant or other documents which may have been filed in support of the cc m p Ia i nt. ( 5 ) THE Adhiniyam came into force on 14. 2. 1982, Lokayukt and Uplokayukt were respectively appointed on 20th and 25th February, 1982. The Rules were framed on 9. 6. 1982. ( 5 ) THE Adhiniyam came into force on 14. 2. 1982, Lokayukt and Uplokayukt were respectively appointed on 20th and 25th February, 1982. The Rules were framed on 9. 6. 1982. It appears that enquires against Gurubachan Singh were conducted by the Vigilence Commission and were incomplete when the Adhiniyam of 1981 came into force, as per the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the office of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt. Consequently under section 20 of the Adhiniyam the enquiries stood transferred to the Lokayukt or Uplokayukt. But then the applicants had applied on 12. 5. 1981 for production of enquiry papers concerning Gurubachan Singh conducted by the Vigilence Commission. Enquiry papers concerning purchase of plot were already produced an inspected the parties and the enquiry papers concerning complaint of Chamelibai were produced in two sealed packets on 4. 2. 1982 but privileged was claimed under section 123 of the Evidence Act. At that stage the Adhiniyam had not come into force though enacted and the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt were yet to be appointed. These enquiry papers have been held to be not privileged documents under section 123 of the Evidence Act. So it is difficult to see how these documents could come within the purview of Section 14 (l) of the Adhiniyam on 4/2/1982 when the Adhiniyam was yet to come into force. Though by 15/3/1982 when the second objection about the production of the documents was filed, the Adhiniyam had come into force still it could not be said that these documents were the information given to the Lokayukt or Uplokayukt and the evidence recorded by them. The information was given to the Vigilence Commission and these are enquiry papers conducted by the Commission. What is prohibited under section 14 (1) of the Adhiniyam from publication is the information given to the Lokayukt, Uplokayukt of their staff and the enquiries done by either of them. So no privilege could be claimed in respect of enquiries already made by the Vigilence Commission. Privilege could be claimed only in respect of information given and enquiries made by the Lokayukt, Uplokayukt or their staff. These documents not being of the latter category, no privilege could be claimed under section 14 (1) of the Adhiniyam. So no privilege could be claimed in respect of enquiries already made by the Vigilence Commission. Privilege could be claimed only in respect of information given and enquiries made by the Lokayukt, Uplokayukt or their staff. These documents not being of the latter category, no privilege could be claimed under section 14 (1) of the Adhiniyam. Under Rule 16, the delinquent public servant has to be supplied with the copy of the complaint and he has a right to take inspection of the documents and the apprehensions about their disclosure to Gurubachan Singh is ill-founded. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge is set aside and it is directed that the two sealed packets concerning the enquiries against Gurubachan Singh done by the Vigilence Commission be produced in Court for cross-examination of Gurubachan Singh Sahota in Court. Revision allowed accordingly. .