JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted under S. 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1922 and also under rules 42 and 43 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 (wrongly stated as Bhartiya Surksha Aantrik Adhiniyam). He has been sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment. It appears that independently, the sentences under rules 42 and 43 have not been recorded and maximum sentence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act has been awarded. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner entered into India without Passport being a Pak National for the purpose of espionage and with this aim in view, he toured Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and at Jodhpur and Jaisalmer, he assumed even false names. He was arrested on 12.7.76 at Jaisalmer but he scaled the wall of the police station and thereafter he was again arrested on 19.7.76. He was interrogated and necessary investigation was conducted and thereafter, a complaint was presented against the appellant as well as against the co-accused Sher Mohammad in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur and the appellant along with the accused were tied by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, who after trial, found the appellant guilty of the said offence and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The main charge against the accused is regarding the commission of the offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. The learned Sessions Judge examined in all 27 witnesses. The prosecution has led evidence regarding the recoveries, which have been effected from the possession of the accused and besides that, the prosecution has further examined the witness of these places, which were visited by the appellant. One diary Ex 7 which was recovered from the possession of the accused contains the entry Ex. P. 45 and another diary Ex.P/44 contained some information regarding the MIG (Aircraft). The entry Ex. P/45 was as under:- "32 W Jodhpur H/R Unit, 1, Operational Oil Coup., Ratanada, Jodhpur, 8 BCO VO Stand Security Head-quarter, Jodhpur" The appellant has also made confession, which was recorded by Shri Anil Kumar Saxena, Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur (PW 20). In his confessional statement he categorically admitted that he was given training for spying in Pakistan and he entered in Indian territory for doing spying and for collecting defence informations. He collected defence informations and transmitted the same to Pakistan. In his confessional statement he categorically admitted that he was given training for spying in Pakistan and he entered in Indian territory for doing spying and for collecting defence informations. He collected defence informations and transmitted the same to Pakistan. From the evidence, it appears that he assumed his name Abdul Razak at Jodhpur and Jaisalmer. Assumption of false name indicates that the appellant was involved in espionage. If the whole evidence the gist of which is given by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment is taken into consideration, then it is amply borne out that the offence under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act is fully proved against the appellant, which prescribes the maximum sentence of 14 years Violation of rules, 42 and 43 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 are also covered under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act in the manner that the appellants acts were likely to assist the Military of Pakistan and the appellant was involved in obtaining the information likely to assist the enemy. The punishment prescribed under rules. 42 and 43 are less than what has been prescribed under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge did not pass any separate order of sentence for the offences under rules. 42 and 43 of the Defence of Indian Rules, 1971 which are fully proved against the appellant and he has been rightly awarded sentence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. 3. This appeal has no force, so, it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******