SAMA RAYAB SAHEB v. STATE — 1992 DIGILAW 322 (GUJ)

JANI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 230 of 1990 filed by the original accused no. 2 in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 377, 378, 379 and 380 of 1990 filed by the State of Gujarat, arise from the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, convicting the accused no. 2 for committing an offence under Sec. 3 (l) (c) of the Official Secrets act, 1923, and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for five years only. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 230 of 1990 preferred by the original accused no. 2 is directed against his conviction and the aforesaid sentence. It appears from the record that the proceeding in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989 was initiated when only accused No. 1 Raima Alimohmed Hothi, resident of Pakistan was arrested in connection with the offence under Sec. 3 (l) (a) (d) (c) and Secs. 9 and 10 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the proceeding of Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989 was intiated against both the accused after accused No. 2 - Sama Rayab Saheb of the village nana Dinara, Tal. Khavada, Dist. Kutch, was arrested in connection with the same offence. As both the proceedings were in respect of the same offence, coming to light on 4-7-1986, common evidence was recorded and both the cases were decided by a common judgment. In fact, it was not necessary to proceed with the Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989 initiated against only accused No. 1, after the Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989 was filed against both the accused in respect of the very offence. Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 1990 filed by the State of Gujarat, are directed against the acquittal of accused No. 1-Alimohmed Hothi in Sessions case No. 66 of 1989 and Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989 respectively. Criminal appeal No. 379 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1990 have been filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the original accused No. 2-Rayab Saheb in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989 and Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989 respectively. Criminal appeal No. 379 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1990 have been filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the original accused No. 2-Rayab Saheb in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989 and Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989 respectively. As there is common charge against both the accused and common evidence was recorded by the Sessions court, in both the Sessions Cases, all the five appeals are now disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case are the following : accused No. 2-Rayab Saheb is an inhabitant of the village Nana Dinara of Khavada Taluka in Kutch District. The village Nana Dinara is on the border of Bharat. Accused No. 1, Alimohmed Hothi, is a Pakistani national. On 2-6-1986, accused No. 1 along with another Pakistani national and an indian citizen were arrested by the Border Security Forces near dharmashala Chowky. They were thereafter produced before their Commander and then in Bhuj. It was learnt that accused No. 2 had kept in his possession a sketch or Map of Bhuj Air Force Field and a Mariners compass for furnishing secret information to Foreign Powers. On 4-7-1986 a search was made in the house of accused No. 2 under the warrant Exh. 10 issued by D. S. P. During his search in the presence of accused No. 2 a copy of the Map of the Air Field of Bhuj and a Mariners Compass were found and seized from his house. Thereafter the complaint Exh. 50 was field in Khavda Police Station. It appears from the record that the government of India authorised the Police Inspector Shri C. P. Rathod to prosecute the aforesaid two accused along with others under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act. ( 4 ) ON committal to the Court of Sessions, Raima Alimohmed Hothi was charged for committing the offence under Sec. 3 (l) (a) (b) (c) read with Sees. ( 4 ) ON committal to the Court of Sessions, Raima Alimohmed Hothi was charged for committing the offence under Sec. 3 (l) (a) (b) (c) read with Sees. 9 and 10 of the Act in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1989; but after the arrest of accused No. 2, both the accused were charged for committing an offence under the aforesaid provisions by abetting each other in spying activity, and supplying secret documents to the Pakistani Intelligence, in view of the fact that the master lay-out plan of Bhuj Air Field described as a "secret" document, was found or recovered from the house of the accused No. 2 in the village nana Dinara of Khavda Taluka of Bhuj District at 16-45 hrs. on 4-7-1986. ( 5 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned sessions Judge recorded the evidence of a panch witness Prafulkumar, Police officers N. K. Gohil, Sajjan Kumar and P. B. Trivedi and the Talati and also the officers of the Border Security Force and Air Force. After appreciation of the evidence the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence on record connecting accused No. 1 with any offence under the Act, but found that accused No. 2 was guilty of the offence under Sec. 3 (l) (c) of the Act in view of the search and seizure of the Map Exh. 54 of Bhuj air Field from his house. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly convicted the accused No. 2 of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for two years. It is this judgment and order which are being challenged in these appeals. ( 6 ) MR. J. G. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1990 makes a three-fold submission. He submits that the prosecution of the accused was not initiated or launched according to Sec. 13 (1) and Sec. 13 (3) of the Act, and, therefore, his conviction would be bad in law. He further submits that Map Exh. 54 cannot be said to be a secret document, possession of which would attract penalty embodied in Sec. 3 of the Act. He also submits in the alternative that the search and seizure of Exh. He further submits that Map Exh. 54 cannot be said to be a secret document, possession of which would attract penalty embodied in Sec. 3 of the Act. He also submits in the alternative that the search and seizure of Exh. 54 which is the basis of imposing the penalty, was not made according to the provision of Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal procedure and so the conviction of accused No. 2 on the basis of such search would not be sustainable. ( 7 ) SO far as the first submissions of Mr. Shah is concerned, it centres round sub-sees. (1) and (3) of Sec. 13 which are re-produced hereinbelow :"13. Restriction on trial of offences.- (1) No Court other than that of a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the appropriate Government, which is inferior to that of a District or Presidency Magistrate shall try any offence under this Act. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the appropriate Government or some officer empowered by the appropriate Government in this behalf. "according to Mr. Shah, the Sessions Judge has no power to try any offence under the Act, as he is not a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the appropriate Government, and the words "no Court" would embrace the Court of the Sessions Judge also. We are afraid, we cannot agree with this submission. The language of sub-sec. (1) does not admit of any interpretation other than the one which we arc now placing on it. Sub-sec. (1) means and implies only that no Court which is inferior to that of District magistrate, unless it is the Court of First Class specially empowered, can try any offence under the said Act. The Sessions Court is obviously not inferior to the Court of District or Presidency Magistrate, Hence the Sessions court at Bhuj had the power to try the offence under the Act. ( 8 ) MR. The Sessions Court is obviously not inferior to the Court of District or Presidency Magistrate, Hence the Sessions court at Bhuj had the power to try the offence under the Act. ( 8 ) MR. Shah further submitted that even the Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act simply on committal of the case or submission of the charge-sheet, and it can take cognizance only of complaint made by order of or under authority from the appropriate Government or some officers empowered by the appropriate Government in this behalf. ( 9 ) AS we have already indicated hereinabove, the Government of India in its Home Department had already issued an order Exh. 11 dt. 14/10/1988, for prosecuting the accused in Court of competent jurisdiction and for authorising the Police Inspector Shri Rathod to lodge a complaint in that regard in such a Court. Hence the submission of Mr. Shah has no merit so far as the power of the Court to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the accused is concerned. ( 10 ) REGARDING the second submission of Mr. Shah, we find that the document Exh. 54 which was found and seized from the house of accused no. 2 is obviously a secret document not only in the light of the term "prohibited place" but also in view of the evidence of the three officers of B. S. F. and Air Force. 11. The term "prohibited place" means and includes as per clause (8) (a) of Sec. 2 of the Act, which is re-produced hereinbelow :" (A) any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, camp, ship or aircraft belonging to, or occupied by or on behalf of Government, any military telegraph or telephone so belonging or occupied, any wireless or signal station or office so belonging or occupied and any factory, dockyard or other place so belonging or occupied and used for the purpose of building, repairing, making or storing any munitions of war, or any sketches, plans, models or documents relating thereto, or for the purpose of getting any metals, oil or minerals of use in time of war. " ( 11 ) THIS definition of prohibited place includes military or Air-Force establishment occupied by, or on behalf of Government. The document Exh. " ( 11 ) THIS definition of prohibited place includes military or Air-Force establishment occupied by, or on behalf of Government. The document Exh. 54 is a tracing copy of the Map of Bhuj Air Field which would obviously be a prohibited place contemplated by the definitive clause. ( 12 ) P. W. 1-Diwansingh Naigi, who was serving as Intelligence Inspector in B. S. F. at the relevant time, has deposed in his evidence Exh. 8 that a map tracing or map found from the house of accused No. 2 was a master lay-out plan of Bhuj Air Force Air Field, and it was meant to be kept secret, as supply of such a map to foreign Intelligence would create a threat to the security of this country. 13. 1 P. W. 8-Prerokumar Saksena, who was working as a Station Security officer in the Air-Force, has deposed in his evidence Exh. 28 that the Map art. 2 was that of Bhuj Air Field, prepared for M. E. S. Project. The said witness has seen every part of Bhuj and Bhuj Air Field and, therefore, he was able to depose that the map was that of Bhuj Air Field. Thus, this witness Saksena, proved the contents of the Map Exh. 54, and he was not at all cross-examined on behalf of the accused. 13. 2. The abovesaid document is further proved and fortified by the evidence of the prosecution witness P. W. 17-Ramesh Yashvantray who brought the tracing dated 28-5-1975 from his office and deposed that the details about the Air Field shown in the Tracing corresponded with the details in the blue-print and the document Exh. 54. ( 13 ) THUS, the evidence of these three witnesses establishes the correctness of the Map Exh. 54 in relation to the situation of Bhuj Air Field. Mr. Shahs submission, therefore, that the signature on the document Exh. 54 was not proved by examining the signatory, does not help the defence in any way inasmuch as it is not necessary to prove the signature of the concerned officer, or to prove the formal execution thereof; the only aspect which is required to be proved is that the document or the map is an exact replied of the Air Force Air Field which is a prohibited place, and this aspect has been sufficiently proved by the aforesaid three witnesses. ( 14 ) NOW comes the last submission of Mr. Shah in relation to the vital aspect of this case, namely, search and seizure of the Map Exh. 54 from the house of accused No. 2. A panchnama Exh. 23 was made by the Circle police Inspector, Nalia Camp on 4-7-1986 for carrying out the search of the house of accused No. 2 situated in village Nona Dinara. Two panchas were selected from Bhuj. One panchnama was made at 14-30 hrs. regarding the articles possessed by these panchas and the articles found in the police vehicle and it was recorded that no maps or documents were found from the panchas or from the Police Jeep Car. The Police Officer went with the panchas and other policemen to Khavada at 15-30 hrs. and other policemen also were taken from Khavada Police Station. They came to Nana Dinara at about 16-15 hrs. and produced the warrant of search before the accused No. 2 whose thumb impression was taken on the warrant in acknowledgement thereof. During the search a Mariners Compass of Japan Make was found from a bag lying in a corner and the Map Exh. 54 in a folded condition was found in matresses placed on a wooden rack. This panchnama was sought to be proved by examining the panch witness p. W. 5- Prafulkumar Ramanuj at Exh. 22. He deposed that the other panch gulabsingh who was his friend, had expired. He proved his own - signature on the Panchnama Exh. 23, but turned hostile by saying that the police had taken his signatures on certain papers. He deposed that he also had signed the alleged panchnama without reading it as his friend Gulabsingh had placed his signature. He denied that he was taken to the house of Rayab Saheb in Nana Dinara or that the map was found during search of that house in his presence. Thus the panch witness turned hostile. ( 15 ) MR. Shah submits that the police did not select independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the house of accused No. 2 was situated as required by sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Thus the panch witness turned hostile. ( 15 ) MR. Shah submits that the police did not select independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the house of accused No. 2 was situated as required by sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Instead, the Panchas were taken from Bhuj which was at quite some distance from Nana Dinara and the result of such a search or inspection would not warrant conviction of the accused in respect of any article found in the search. ( 16 ) THOUGH this submission is apparently attractive it is not quite relevant inasmuch as selection of the panchas either from Bhuj or from Nana Dinara would not have made any difference in the present case. One of the panchas had expired, and the other who supported the prosecution in proving his signature on the panchnama, turned hostile to the prosecution in respect of the contents of the panchnama. As such the contents of the panchnama, except the signature part of it is not proved by any panch, and so apparent noncompliance with Sec. 100 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not affect the present case. ( 17 ) NOW the question that remains to be considered is whether the accused no. 2 can be held guilty for collection, or possession of the Map Exh. 54 on the basis of the Panchnama Exh. 23 unsupported by the evidence of Panch witnesses, but supported by the evidence of investigating Police officers. 18. 1. In the present case, P. W. 18-B. B. Trivedi who was a Circle police Inspector, Nalia, who received an order from the D. S. P. on 30- 6-1986 for carrying out the search of the house of accused No. 2, made a preliminary panchnama on 4-7-1986 regarding the search of panchas themselves of Bhuj. The Panchas were brought to Khavada Police Station from where some policemen were taken in a Jeep and their search was also made in the presence of the Panchas. Then all of them came to Nana Dinara where accused No. 2 was present at his house and a search of his house was carried out. This witness has graphically described and narrated these facts in his testimony Exh. 62, and his evidence correctly depicts the recovery of the Mariners Compass from the yellow box and the lay-out plan Exh. Then all of them came to Nana Dinara where accused No. 2 was present at his house and a search of his house was carried out. This witness has graphically described and narrated these facts in his testimony Exh. 62, and his evidence correctly depicts the recovery of the Mariners Compass from the yellow box and the lay-out plan Exh. 54 from the mattresses lying on the wooden rack. Having failed to obtain any explanation regarding the possession of the map or the bill regarding the Mariners Compass, the investigating Officer completed the panchnama and took the signatures of the Panchas. This evidence of the Investigating Officer, therefore, proves the contents of the panchnama and the recovery an seizure of the Map exh. 54 and the Mariners Compass from the house of the accused No. 2. It is not necessary to look at this evidence with suspicion in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer had no particular grudge against this accused and he had merely executed the order of warrant received from the D. S. P. 18. 2. This evidence is further supported by the testimony of the Police inspector Nirmalsingh K. Gohil P. W. 15 who had accompanied the Circle officer Mr. Trivedi to Khavada and then to Nana Dinara. In his evidence exh. 51 he deposed about the different panchnamas made at Bhuj, Khavada and then at Nana Dinara. He also deposed about the recovery of the mariners Compass from the green bag and of the folded Map Exh. 54 from the mattresses lying on the rack. He was present throughout the search and seizure, and his evidence fully supports the evidence of Police Inspector mr. Trivedi. 18. 3. The evidence regarding search and seizure is also partly supported by the testimony of P. W. 16-Sajan Sura who was serving as a Police Constable in Nalia at the relevant time. He had accompanied the Circle Inspector Mr. Trivedi and the Police Inspector Mr. Gohil from Bhuj to Khavada and then to Nana Dinara along with the Panchas and other policemen in a Jeep car. He has deposed that he and other policemen cordoned the house of accused no. 2 at 16-15 hrs. at the time of raid and the two panchas and the two police officers Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Gohil entered the house. He has deposed that he and other policemen cordoned the house of accused no. 2 at 16-15 hrs. at the time of raid and the two panchas and the two police officers Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Gohil entered the house. After the search, the four persons came out of the house and told them that a Mariners Compass and a Map of Bhuj Air Field had been found from the house. The evidence of this witness at Exh. 52 corroborates the prosecution story that the raiding party along with two Panchas had gone to the house of accused No. 2 at nana Dinara. ( 18 ) IT may, therefore, be safely inferred that the search and seizure of the Map Exh. 54 had taken place as per Panchnama Exh. 22, and this fact was proved inspite of one Panch having turned hostile and another having expired before the trial. As the Supreme Court has observed in hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 , where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid a trap is found entirely trust-worthy, there is no need to seek any corroboration, and there is no rule of prudence which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. These observations were made in the context of a trap laid under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Perhaps the present case would stand on a much higher footing inasmuch as the police was not expected to lay any trap. It was on information having been received from a Pakistan national that the Investigating Officer under the order of the D. S. P. went with the panchas and other policemen to the house of accused No. 2 and found the incriminating article from his house. ( 19 ) IN Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691 the supreme Court accepted the evidence of the two Police Officers regarding discovery of a blood stained rod inspite of both the panchas turned hostile, even in a case of circumstantial evidence. We, therefore, have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the incriminating article, i. e. , lay out plan Exh. 54 was found along with a Mariners Compass from the possession of accused No. 2. ( 20 ) MR. We, therefore, have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the incriminating article, i. e. , lay out plan Exh. 54 was found along with a Mariners Compass from the possession of accused No. 2. ( 20 ) MR. J. G. Shah made a feeble attempt to diminish the evidentiary value of this panchnama by pointing out that the number of the house in the warrant issued by the D. S. P. was 240 while there was no such house found in Nana Dinara which was standing in the name of accused No. 2. It is true that the only house standing in the name of accused No. 2 was bearing No. 4/2, as per the evidence of the Talati, Tulsipuri Devipuri, P. W. 7, and that there was no house having the Number 240. But one fact is clearly proved from his evidence based on record that there was only one house in the name of accused No. 2, situated in the village Nana Dinara and he was present at this house when the police party along with panchas came there to execute the warrant of search. In fact, left hand thumb impression of the accused No. 2 was taken below the warrant at Nana Dinara. The discrepancy regarding the number of the house is, therefore, of no consequence and it is rightly ignored by the learned Sessions Judge. . ( 21 ) ONCE a finding is reached that the Map Exh. 54 was found from the house of accused No. 2, it is not at all necessary to prove any further fact regarding the intention of the accused. ( 22 ) MR. J. G. Shah, learned Advocate, for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that the document Exh. 54 was intended to be useful to the enemy and so the penalty mentioned in clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 was not attracted. The relevant portion of Sec. 3 of the Act reads as under :"3. J. G. Shah, learned Advocate, for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that the document Exh. 54 was intended to be useful to the enemy and so the penalty mentioned in clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 was not attracted. The relevant portion of Sec. 3 of the Act reads as under :"3. Penalties for spying :- (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (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 any 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 eases to three years. (2) xxx xxx xxx "this clause (c) provides a penalty for obtaining or collecting any sketch, plan or article or other document which might be useful to an enemy. At the same time, sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 creates a presumption regarding the intention of the accused. Sub-sec. (2) xxx xxx xxx "this clause (c) provides a penalty for obtaining or collecting any sketch, plan or article or other document which might be useful to an enemy. At the same time, sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 creates a presumption regarding the intention of the accused. Sub-sec. (2) reads as under :"3 (2) On a prosecution for an offence punishable under this section it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or password is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, and from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, such sketch, plan model, article, note. document, information. code or password shall be presumed to have been made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. " ( 23 ) IT is, therefore, not necessary to show that the accused was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State, if from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State, and in such a case, the document shall be presumed to have been made or obtained or collected for the purpose prejudicial to the safety of the State. In the present case, sufficient evidence is led regarding the conduct and known character of the appellant as well as the circumstances of the case. The evidence of P. W. 1-Diwan-singh Naigi shows that the accused no. In the present case, sufficient evidence is led regarding the conduct and known character of the appellant as well as the circumstances of the case. The evidence of P. W. 1-Diwan-singh Naigi shows that the accused no. 2 and one Siddiq had been arrested in connection with the murder of haji Ibrahim Sureya when the witness served in Khavadia area for about 7 years. This witness has also deposed on the basis of the office record that accused No. 2 had taken active part during the war between Bharat and Pakistan in the year 1964 and that the said accused was detained under misa in the year 1974. Some other documents also have been placed on record to indicate the background of the activities of accused No. 2 : (i) Exh. 29 is the village crime note dated 22-6-1975 showing that accused no. 2 was indulging in the activity of helping Bengalis to enter the borders of Pakistan by accepting remuneration and that he was arrested under MISA on 25-7-1975. A note was made on 8-1-1976 that accused no. 2 was spying for Pakistan; (ii) Exh. 30 is a copy of the F. I. R. nd. 27 of 1972 dated 6-9-1972 lodged with the Police Station in Sub-District Vedi (Bhuj) against the accused no. 2 and others under the Foreigners Act; (iii) Exh. 31 is a copy of the F. I. R. No. 51 of 1974 dated 17-10-1974 lodged with Khavada Police Station against the accused Rayab Saheb under the Defence of India Act; (iv) Exh. 32 is a copy of the F. I. R. No. 56 of 1983 dated 9-10-1983 lodged against the accused Rayab Saheb with Khavada Police Station under the Pass-port Act; (v) Exh. 34 is a copy of the F. I. R. dated 7-4-1975 lodged against the said accused and two others with Khavada Police Station under the pass-port Rules; (vi) Exh. 35 is a copy of the F. I. R. No. 90 of 1970 dated 16-5-1970 lodged against the same accused with Khavada Police Station under indian Pass-port Rules; (vii) Exh. 36 is a copy of the F. I. R. No. 32 of 1970 dated 8-10-1970 lodged against the accused Rayab Saheb with Khavada Police Station under the Indian Pass-port Rules; (viii) Exh. 36 is a copy of the F. I. R. No. 32 of 1970 dated 8-10-1970 lodged against the accused Rayab Saheb with Khavada Police Station under the Indian Pass-port Rules; (viii) Exh. 41 consists of a cash memo and also a statement furnished by kotak Transport showing that accused No. 2 used to send Bales of tobacco leaves to Pakistan from time to time. ( 24 ) THIS evidence has been produced on the record of the case in order to give an idea about the known character and background of accused No. 2. If, with this background the accused is shown also to have in possession of Map Exh. 54 relating to Bhuj Air Force Air-Field, the presumption under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act would arise and the accused would attract penalty stipulated in clause (c) thereof. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly convicted the accused No. 2 under Sec. 3 (l) (c) of the Act. Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1990 filed by the accused No. 2 will, therefore, have to be dismissed. ( 25 ) SO far as Criminal Appeals Nos. 379 of 1990 and 380 of 1990 filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement are concerned, it is submitted by the learned A. P. P. that the maximum punishment provided under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 is 14 years if the offence is committed in relation to any Air Force establishment or any Air Force affairs. According to Mr. Bukhari, the sentence of 5 years imposed on accused no. 2 was quite lenient. It cannot, however, be over-looked that Sec. 3 does not provide for any minimum punishment. The learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the submissions made by the accused regarding his family circumstances including the liability of his unmarried daughter and decided to impose the sentence of R. I. for 5 years. The sentence prescribed under clause (c) for obtaining or collecting any sketch, plan or other information which was calculated to be useful to the enemy is 3 years, but it can be 14 years if the offence relates to defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly decided not to impose the sentence below three years, but it has exercised its judicial discretion of imposing a sentence of five years. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly decided not to impose the sentence below three years, but it has exercised its judicial discretion of imposing a sentence of five years. It cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised his discretion properly. It would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the exercise of such judicial discretion by the trial Court particularly when the exercise of such discretion is not found to be perverse. We, therefore, dismiss Criminal Appeals Nos. 379 and 380 of 1990. ( 26 ) CRIMINAL Appeals Nos. 377 and 378 of 1990 are the acquittal appeals filed by the State Government in respect of the acquittal of accused No. 1 who was a Pakistani national. On appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge Found that the link between accused No. 1 and the recovery of Map Exh. 54 from the house of accused No. 2 was not adequately established. Nothing cogent is pointed out on behalf of the State to disturb this finding of fact. Hence these appeals also will have to be dismissed. ( 27 ) IN the result, all the five appeals are dismissed. .