Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These three appeals have been filed by the appellants Shafi Mohammed, Chhottu Khan and Chand Khan against the judgment dated March 9, 2004 of Sessions Judge Jaipur City Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1992 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Accused appellant Safi Mohammed was acquitted of the offence under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 6, 1990 Bhoormal Jain, Superintendent of Police CID Zone Jodhpur lodged an FIR for the offence under Sections 3, 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120B IPC with the Special Police Station Rajasthan Jaipur which is numbered as FIR No. 1/1990. On the basis of the said report after investigation complaint Ex. P/20 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City Jaipur by Dan Chand Sharma (PW.10), wherein it was stated that on March 6, 1990 Bhoormal Jain SP CID Zone Jodhpur was informed by an informant that one suspected person was seen going in AIR Force Area Jodhpur. After receiving information one Veer Singh Inspector of Police CID was given instructions to keep a vigil on the suspected person. Veer Singh after keeping Vigil on suspected Road Jodhpur, where suspected person was staying. When Veer Singh asked the name of suspected person he has disclosed his name as Anil Sindhi son of Bhagwandas Sindhi resident of Jamnagar (Gujrat) and he came to Jodhpur for some work of tailoring. Veer Singh further enquired from him regarding Gujrati Language and Hindu religion, but he was not able to explain anything about Gujrati language and Hindu religion. A doubt was created by the suspected person in the mind of Veer Singh. Veer Singh further enquired about his whereabouts then the suspected person disclosed his actual name as Mohammed Isfaq son of Mukram Khan resident of Karanchi (Pakistan). Veer Singh sent the information about the suspected person to Bhoormal Jain, SP CID. On this Bhoormal Jain reached at Rathi Guest House accompanied by N.K. Atrey Deputy Superintendent of Police. They further interrogated the suspected person and searched his baggage. They recovered one bound copy containing five pages. Some writing was there in Urdu language. They also found a small written piece of paper in the bound copy. On this Bhoormal Jain reached at Rathi Guest House accompanied by N.K. Atrey Deputy Superintendent of Police. They further interrogated the suspected person and searched his baggage. They recovered one bound copy containing five pages. Some writing was there in Urdu language. They also found a small written piece of paper in the bound copy. On tearing the air baggage they found one restricted sheet 45 "A" Phalodi, inside map two papers of bound copy containing sketches of important places of Airforce and also certain notes in Urdu language were also found. Because the recovered documents were secret, in presence of Om Prakash Rathi and Ramdas, the said documents were seized. It was also stated in the complaint that on further enquiry from the suspected person Mohammed Isfaq disclosed that when he was sent by Pak F.I.U. Intelligence Agency to India on Feb. 5, 1990 he came through Pak Post Kekdi and Indian post B.K.D. Bakkhasar with the help of Jawahra Koli of Bakhasar and illegally crossed Boundary and reached Jodhpur and Jethachanana where ASM Safi Mohammed was posted and delivered Rs. 6500 (Indian currency notes) sent by Pak Intelligence to him and asked him about the work done. On this Safi Mohammed informed him that work is yet to be completed and the same would be completed upto 7 ad 8 March, 1990. On the basis of aforesaid information Mohd. Isfaq and Safi Mohammed were found to be Pak spies and they have sent the report through special messenger Navnit Kumar, CID Special Zone Jodhpur and the same was received by the Special Police Station SHO, Yadram Tewari, who lodged the FIR and started for Jodhpur for investigation and he went there and arrested Mohammed Isfaq. He further interrogated Mohammed Isfaq then he disclosed that Pak agency asked him to give money to Safi Mohammed, posted as ASM for the information to be supplied to them. Yadram Tewari along with him reached Jetha Chanana and asked Safi Mohammed to call Mohammed Isfaq at his quarter and asked him about the work. He was told that if he stated for completion of work then he may keep his right hand on his head and give signal to them. On this Mohammed Isfaq reached at the Officers quarters of Railway Station Jetha Channa at quarter No. T-4/1967 from west side entrance and called Safi Mohammed. He was told that if he stated for completion of work then he may keep his right hand on his head and give signal to them. On this Mohammed Isfaq reached at the Officers quarters of Railway Station Jetha Channa at quarter No. T-4/1967 from west side entrance and called Safi Mohammed. On this Safi Mohammed opened the door and Mohammed Isfaq asked him about completion of work on which he kept his right hand on head. Safi Mohammed was arrested in presence of Umed Singh and Bhoop Singh and his quarter was searched. On searching, south wall of room in the fixed almirah one diary was found. One trace map was also found. All these documents were seized in presence of witnesses. In the complaint it was further stated that on the information given by Mohammed Isfaq the investigating officer for searching Chhotu Khan reached Kuchaman City. Chhotu Khan was arrested and on searching his pant one restricted chart of organisation mountain division Deu Headquarter was found. The same was sealed by the police. During investigation Chhotu Khan revealed about Chand Khan to reach on March 17, 1990 at Bakhasar, who was to be contacted by Jawahara Koli for going back to Pak. On this investigating officer along with staff reached Bakhasar and Dheemaram Vishnoi Dy. SP CID Barmer was also informed. Informant informed that from Ghadhav to Bakhasar Bus some passengers are coming in which one of them is Chand Khan and on receiving signal Chand Khan was stopped and he informed that he is resident of Kuchaman City on which he was arrested and on searching his pant one black Purse of Ragjin was recovered. On Opening purse 33 U.S. U through 56 APO, one Newspaper cutting and one belt, and Sanik Samachar of Feb. 14, 88 were found. Seized articles were sealed by the police. All these persons entered into a conspiracy for collection and communication of information concerning defence matters which could be prejudicial to the safety or security or interests of the State, which created problem to the peace of Country, hence they were apprehending to be enemy of Indian, were arrested. After detailed investigation the police submitted challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120 B IPC. After detailed investigation the police submitted challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120 B IPC. The CJM committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge Jaipur City Jaipur vide order dated July 26, 1994 framed charge under Section 3/9 against Mohammed Isfaq, 3/5 against Mohammed Safi, 3/9 against accused Chhotu Khan, 3/9 against accused Chand Khan, and against accused Safi Mohammed under Sections 3/0 & 5 of the Official Secrets Act. The accused appellants denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 33 witnesses and got exhibited some documents thereafter examined accused under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. In defence one witness Kamruddin was examined as DW.1. After hearing both the sides the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above vide judgment dated March 9, 2004. Against this judgment of the Sessions Judge the appellants have filed these three appeals for quashing the judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. M.S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant Shafi Mohammed, placing reliance on the cases of Khudeswar Dutta vs. State of Assam (1998) 4 SCC 492 , Ram Ratan vs. State of Punjab (1979 Cr.L.J. 791) Hanuman Das vs. Union of India (2004 (3) RCC 1480 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 180, Stya Narayan vs. Union of India (2002(2) RCC 728, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 , Sans Pal Singh vs. State of Delhi (1999 Cr.L.J. 19) Narsi vs. State of Haryana (1999 Cr.L.J. 271) Mousam Singha Roy and others vs. State of W.B. (2003) 13 SCC 377, Lalli vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 12 SCC 666, Aslam Parwez vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003 Cr.L.J. 2525. Ser Ali vs. State of Rajasthan 1992 RCC 389, and Pratap Singh and another vs. State of M.P. (2005) 13 SCC 624 = RLW 2006(1) SC 676, and contended that the prosecution failed to prove case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he has been unnecessarily involved in the case. He has drawn attention of this Court on Ex. P/22, P/35. Ex. P.22 was Khana Talasi and seizure memo of restricted documents in the presence of two witnesses Umed Singh and Khoob Singh. He has drawn attention of this Court on Ex. P/22, P/35. Ex. P.22 was Khana Talasi and seizure memo of restricted documents in the presence of two witnesses Umed Singh and Khoob Singh. The learned counsel contended that out of these two witnesses, one witness was declared hostile and other witness Umed Singh was not produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel argued that the defence witness produced by the defence was not taken into consideration by the trial Court and no discussion about him was done in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial court erred in law in placing reliance on PW.2 Om Prakash Rathi, who is an independent witness. From his statement it is revealed that Ex.D.3 was recovered on March 6, 1990 at Rathi Guest House and there is no question of recovering Ex. P. 22 on March 7, 1990. The learned counsel averred that appellant Safi Mohammed was ASM at Police Station Jetha Chanana and in this connection two witnesses PW.7 Narain Ram and PW.8 Mohan Singh were produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to put any question in relation to quarter of accused appellant from these witnesses. In this manner the prosecution failed to prove the possession of the accused appellant on the quarter from which material was seized. The learned counsel also contended that the trial Court erred in relying on documents Ex. P. 33 and P. 34. The learned counsel argued that in item No. C it is clear that in relation to it, it has been mentioned that this is not part of the airforce range. In relation to Ex.D.3 no opinion was given. The learned counsel also averred about the material seized was kept in sealed condition or not in the Malkhana. No witness in this respect was examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel argued that the appellant is in no way concerned with the crime and he has been falsely implicated, he should be acquitted. 4. Mr. M.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant Chhotu Khan and Mr. K.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Chand Khan reiterated the arguments of Mr. S.R. Surana and further stated that the appellants are in judicial custody for more than 4 years and 2 months and they should be released for the period already undergone by them in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. K.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Chand Khan reiterated the arguments of Mr. S.R. Surana and further stated that the appellants are in judicial custody for more than 4 years and 2 months and they should be released for the period already undergone by them in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this court specially on the statements of PW.15, PW.20, PW. 33, PW. 31, PW. 32 and PW. 33. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that the trial Court after discussing the evidence and the documents recovered from the accused appellants, found the accused appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act and the prosecution has been able to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellants were Pak spying and one of them was caught in AIR Force Area and others who were also related with him in furtherance of the work given by the Pak Agency to them. The trial Court rightly convicted them under Section 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2008 Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana held as under: 9. Coming to applicability of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in Indian and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. 10. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in Indian and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. 10. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence." (See Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: AIR 1957 SC 366 ). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1956 SC 460 ). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently, speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. The witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sahrab s/s Belli Nayata and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1972) 3 SCC 751 , and Umar Ahir and others vs. The State of Bihar: AIR 1965 SC 277 ). An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1954 SC 15 ;and Balaka Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab: AIR 1975 SC 1962 ). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and another: AIR 1981 SC 1390 , normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised while normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so." 8. From the above it is clear that principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus," even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in Indian and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. 9. Before proceeding further a brief of the evidence produced by the prosecution is necessary. PW.1 Navneet Kumar son of Bansilal, Costable No. 234 CID. Special Zone Jodhpur in his statement stated that on Ex P.1 `A' to `B' is his signature which is `Karyavahi Police' which is done by him before Inspector Police CID Jaipur Shri Yadram Tewari. PW.2 Om Prakash Rathi son of Faulal. In his statement he stated that he is son of owner of Rathi Guest house where accused stayed. He proved Ex. P.2 and stated that on this he made signatures A to B. Ex.P. 3 Map, Ex.. 4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P. 6 were recovered from the accused in his presence. He also stated that Ex.P.7 to Ex. P. 14 were Cinema tickets recovered from the accused. All these documents were seized and sealed before him and Ramdas Rathi. PW. 3 Navnit Kumar son of Hari Singh, Inspector of Police stated that Ex..3 Map was recovered from the accused in his presence. Accused was seen moving in Airforce area. PW.4 Jainarain Rathi, is a trader and he attested the document Ex. P. 17 arrest memo of accused appellant Mohd. Ishaq. PW.5 Ramdas, one of the partner of Rathi Guesh House attested Ex. P. 2 and stated that `E to F' is his signature. He also stated that Ex.P.7 to Ex.P. 14 are the Cinema tickets recovered from accused Mohd. Isfaq. PW. 6 Veer Singh Gehlot in his statement stated that Ex. P.2 was in his handwriting. He also stated that G to H is the signature of N.K. Atrey, who was Dy. S.P. He also stated that Ex. P.3, Ex. P. 4 and Ex.P. 5 were recovered in his presence. PW.7 Narain Ram was ASM in 1986 to 1990 at Jetha Chanana. P.2 was in his handwriting. He also stated that G to H is the signature of N.K. Atrey, who was Dy. S.P. He also stated that Ex. P.3, Ex. P. 4 and Ex.P. 5 were recovered in his presence. PW.7 Narain Ram was ASM in 1986 to 1990 at Jetha Chanana. He was declared hostile. Mohan Singh was examined as PW.8 he stated that the accused Safi Mohammed was posted as ASM at Jetha Chanana. He was also living in one of the quarter near to the quarter of Safi Mohammed. He was also declared hostile. PW.9 Arvind Mathur testified in his statement about the handing over of sealed envelop to FSL. PW.10 Dan Chand Sharma was posted as Dy. S.P. CID Jaipur. He proved that he filed the complaint No. 1/90 (Ex. P. 20) which bears his signatures A to B. PW. 11 Bhoormal was SP CID Intelligence at Jodhpur he has given the complete description of the complaint and how the accused were arrested. PW. 12 Koob Singh was declared hostile. PW.13 Guman Singh was also declared hostile. PW.14 Rameshwar was also declared hostile. PW.15 Daulat Ram was also declared hostile. PW. 16 Nand Kishore Atre was Additional SP, at Jodhpur on 6.3.90. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.17 Ram Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and Public Prosecutor left this witness to be further examined. PW.18 Sher Singh supported the case of the prosecution that in his presence house of Safi Mohammed was searched. But he was also declared hostile. PW.19 Jagdish Chand Addl. S.P. Vigilance Jaipur supported the prosecution case. PW.20 Mahendra Singh Sub Inspector CID Jodhpur supported the case of the prosecution. PW.21 Dr. T.S. Kapur, posted in FSL testified the documents examined by the FSL and the results. PW.22 Suresh Kumar Sub Inspector Police supported the case of prosecution. PW.23 Ghanshyam was posted as Assistant Jailor at the time when the identification parade of the accused appellants was done in Jail. He fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.24 Yadram Tewari, SHO Special Police Station Jaipur, fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.25 Dilip Singh and PW.26 Purkharam did not support the prosecution case. PW.27 Lt. Col. S.K. Sarin, fully supported the case of the prosecution. The other independent witnesses PW.28 to PW.33 supported the case of the prosecution. 10. PW.24 Yadram Tewari, SHO Special Police Station Jaipur, fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.25 Dilip Singh and PW.26 Purkharam did not support the prosecution case. PW.27 Lt. Col. S.K. Sarin, fully supported the case of the prosecution. The other independent witnesses PW.28 to PW.33 supported the case of the prosecution. 10. At this stage, extracts of statements of PW.11 Bhoormal, PW. 16 Nand Kishore Atrey, PW.19 Jagdish Chandra Kawat, PW.20 Mahendra Singh, PW.24 Yadram Tewari, PW.27 Lt. Col. S.K. Sarin, are necessary to be reproduced. The same read as under: PW. 11 Bhoormal, S.P. CID Intelligence Jodhpur in his statements stated as under: ^^cloky fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 6-3-90 dks eSa ,l-ih- lh-vkbZ-Mh- bUVsyhtsUl tks/kiqj ds in ij rSukr FkkA esjs v/khuLFk Mh-,l-ih- Jh ,u-ds- v=s Fkk vkSj baLisDVj ohjflag Hkh esjs v/khuLFk FkkA eSaus baLisDVj ohjflag dks ,d lansgkLin O;fDr ds ckjs esa] tks ,;jQkslZ ,sfj;k esa gksuk crk;k tkrk Fkk] mlds ckjs esa ekyqe djus dk dgk FkkA ml O;fDr dk uke ckn esa eksg- blgkd ikfdLrku fuoklh gksuk ik;k x;k FkkA og O;fDr vkt gkftj vnkyr eqfYte eksg- blgkd gSA eSa bldks igpkurk gwaA bl O;fDr dks eSaus 6-3-90 dks djhc pkj cts ds vkl ikl jkBh foJke x`g tks/kiqj esa ns[kk fQj dgk fd eSusa mldks djhcu vkB cts ds vklikl ogka ns[kk FkkA jkBh foJke x`g x;k ml le; esjs lkFk Mh-,l-ih- ,u-ds v=s o LVkQ ds dqN O;fDr FksA eSusa vfHk;qDr eksg- blgkd ls iwNk fd vki ikfdLrku ls D;ksa vk;s gks rks mlus crk;k fd eSaus fiNyh ckj 'kQh eksg-] ,-,l-,e- tsBk oknx.k dks 6500@& #i;s fn;s Fks] D;ksafd mlls ,d dke djokuk Fkk] blfy, mlls feyus tk jgk gwaA eSusa mlls iwNk fd vki vkSj fdldksa Hkkjr esa tkurs gks rks mlus crk;k fd eSa NksVw [kka o pkan eksgEen fuoklh dqpkeu flVh dks tkurk gwaA** PW. 16 Nand Kishore Atrey, Addl. 16 Nand Kishore Atrey, Addl. S.P. Jodhpur, in his statement stated as under: ^^cloky c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 6-3-90 dks eSa lh-vkbZ-Mh- tksu tks/kiqj jkt- esa iqfyl v/kh{kd ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml fnu ikd ukxfjd eksg- blgkd] ftldk uke ckn esa ekyqe pyk Fkk] jkBh foJke x`g] tks/kiqj esa idM+k x;k FkkA ftldks eSusa rRdkyhu ,l-ih- Hkwjey tSu ds lkFk jkBh foJke x`g esa lk<+s vkB cts lk;adky igqap dj tkek ryk'kh eksg- blgkd dh lkeku dh ryk'kh yh FkhA ryk'kh ds nkSjku mlds ikl mlds dCts esa ,d ,s;j csx feyk FkkA mDr csx esa ,d thUl dh isUV] ,d 'kVZ dqrhZuqek iktkek] ,d rhu ehVj xqykch jax dk js'keh diM+k vkSj nks ehVj dk xqykch jax dk js'kuh diM+k] ,d ihl VsjhdksVu dk] ,d [kkyh FkSyk] ,slehyksu ds cPpksa ds xeZ lwV] gjs jax dh cky iSu] ,d ykWdsV ftl ij fudy ikfyl Fkh vkSj mnwZ esa vYykg fy[kk gqvk Fkk vkSj nks lkS #i;s Hkkjrh; eqnzk] ,d jaxh QksVks eksg- blgkd dh fyQkQs esa] ftl ij egknso LVwfM;ks tks/kiqj fy[kk gqvk Fkk] ,d foftfVax dkMZ cuke de#nhu dk] fnYyh xsV ckgj] vtesj dk FkkA bl lkeku esa ,d ykbZunkj dkih Hkh feyh Fkh] ftlds izFke ikap i`"Bksa esa mnwZ esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk rFkk vafre pkj istksa esa mnwZ o vaxzsth esa vad fy[ks gq, FksA blh ykbunkj dkih esa ,d iphZ Hkh Fkh] ftl ij mnwZ esa fy[kk gqvk FkkA bl cSx esa ds isans dks QkM+dj ns[kk x;k rks mlesa QykSnh ds vklikl ds bykds dk ,d izfrcaf/kr esi cjken gqvkA bl esi esa xSj ykbZunkj nks iUus feys] ftuesa ,s;jQkslZ egRoiw.kZ fBdkuksa ds Ldsp cuk;s gq, Fks vkSj nwljs iUus esa mnwZ esa uksV fy[ks gq, FksA** P.W. 19 Jagdish Chandra Kawat, Addl. S.P. Vigilance Jodhpur in his statement stated as under: ^^cloky fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 20-6-90 o bl rkjh[k ds vklikl vfr- iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼lqj{kk½ fo'ks"k 'kk[kk t;iqj ds in ij fu;qDr FkkA fnukad 20-6-90 dks ,Dth-ih- 29 i= funs'kky; vkehZ bUVsyhtsUl] vkehZ eq[;ky;] Mh-,p-D;w-] ubZ fnYyh izsf"kr fd;k FkkA bl i= ij ,s ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA bl i= ,Dth-ih- 29 ds lkFk vkfVZdy 2 dks fyf[kr] dks Mh-1 ls Mh-5 esa vafdr dh gqbZ gS] ,oa ,Dth-ih- 25 ipkZ] ,Dth-ih- 3 uD'kk] ,Dth-ih- 4 o ,Dth-ih- 5 gkFk ls rS;kj'kqnk uD'ks] 'kQh eksgEen ls cjken Vªsl fd;k gqvk uD'kk ,Dth-Mh- 3 ftlesa CykbZUM] jsYos ykbZu Vªsd] jksM+ vkfn vafdr fd;s gq, gSa] ,d ykbZunkj dkWih ds iUus ij fn'kkvksa ds ladsr ftlesa iksdju] tSlyesj] tsBk pku.k vkfn dh nwfj;ka vafdr gS tks ,Dth-ih- 30 gS] ,d ok;q lsuk dk foKkiu ,Dth-ih- 27] ,d fgUnh esa lSfud lekpkj rFkk lsukvksa dks lkIrkfgd vad tks ,Dth-ih- 31 gS] ,d izfrcaf/kr pkVZ tks ekmUVsu vkxsZukbZts'ku fMohtu dk gS rFkk lsuk ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj NksVw [kka ls cjken fd;k gqvk gS tks ,Dth-ih- 32 gS] bu lc nLrkostkr dks QksVks izfr;ka eSaus funs'kky; vkehZ bUVsyhtsUl] vkehZ eq[;ky;] fnYyh dks] ;g jk; tkuus ds fy;s Hkstk Fkk fd vk;k ,sls nLrkost ,oa muds ,slh vafdr lwpuk;sa ns'k dh lqj{kk ds fy, ?kkrd gS ;k ughaA lk{kh }kjk U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkostkr ns[kdj ;g c;ku fn;k x;k gSA** PW. 20 Mahendra Singh, Sub Inspector CID Jodhpur in his statement stated as under: ^^cloky Lis- ih-ih- c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 6-3-90 dks blds vklikl eSa mi fujh{kd ds in ij lh-vkbZ-Mh-vkbZ-Mh- tksu tks/kiqj ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml le; ,l-ih- Jh Hkwjey tSu Fks] fMIVh ,l-ih- Jh v=s FksA ml le; dk;kZy; esa Jh ohjflag xgyksr bUlisDVj FksA fnukad 6-3-90 dks ohjflag] v=s ,oa ,l-ih- lkgc us lafnX/k ikd ukxfjd eksg- blgkd ls iwNrkN dh FkhA ml ikd ukxfjd eksg- blgkd dks geus ,s;j QkslZ ,sfj;k esa ns[kk FkkA mldh xfrfof/k lafnX/k gksus ls mldk ihNk djrs gq, fujh{k.k ohjflag] eSa] mi fujh{kd uouhr dqekj] dkUl- uouhr dqekj] mldk ihNk djrs gq,] ,s;j QkslZ ,sfj;k ls jkBh foJke x`g igqaps Fks] tgka ij ohjflag us mDr lafnX/k O;fDr ls uke irk iwNk rks mlus igys viuk uke vfuy dqekj flU/kh fuoklh tkeuxj gksuk crk;k rFkk ckn esa vPNh rjg ls vkSj iwNrkN djus ij mlus viuk uke eksg- blgkd ikfdLrku dk fuoklh gksuk crk;kA ftl ij mlls vkSj iwNrkN ds fy, ohjflag us ,l-ih- Jh Hkwjey tSu vkSj Mh-,l-ih- v=s lkgc dks jkBh foJke x`g esa cqyok;k] ftUgksaus Hkh eksg- blgkd ls iwNrkN dh vkSj mlds lkeku dh ryk'kh yh rks mlds csx esa ls dqN iguus ds diM+s] rhu dSlsV] ,d ykbZunkj dkWih] ftlesa mnwZ esa dqN fy[kk gqvk Fkk] nks lkS #i;s Hkkjrh; eqnzk] feykA ckn esa mlh csx ds isans dks QkM+dj pSd fd;k rks] mlds isans esa ,d uD'kk] ftl ij ^^45,** fy[kk gqvk Fkk feyk] ftl ij lafnX/k ls vkSj iwNrkN dhA tks lkeku muls cjken gqvk Fkk] mldks lh-vks- lkgc us tfj;s QnZ tIr dj lhy eksgj fd;kA csx cjken'kqnk ns[kdj igpku ldrk gwaA ml cjken uD'ks dks ns[kdj igpku ldrk gwa] ml ij ^^45,** fy[kk gqvk FkkA cjken csx vkfVZdy ua-1 gSA cjken'kqnk uD'kk ,Dth-ih- 3 gSA cjken ykbZunkj dkih vkfVZdy ua- 2 gSA buds vykok eSus dksbZ NksVs dkxt] esi ugha ns[kk] gkFk dk Ldsp cuk ns[kk FkkA mDr cjken'kqnk lkeku ds vykok dqN iUus ftu ij Ldsp cus gq, Fks] mudks ns[kdj igpku ldrk gwaA eSaus ,d gh Ldsp ns[kh FkhA LdSp ,Dth-ih- 4 eSaus vf/kdkfj;ksa ds gkFk esa ns[kk Fkk] ml le; vf/kdkjh mldks ns[k jgs Fks vkSj eSa ihNs [kM+k mldks ns[k jgk FkkA** PW. 24 Yadraam Tiwari, SHO Special Police Station Jaipur, in his statement stated as under: ^^c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 7-3-90 dks eSa ,l,pvks Lis'ky iqfyl LVs'ku jkt- t;iqj ij rSukr FkkA ml fnu lqcg ,l ih ¼,l,lch½ dh vksj ls ,d dkal- uouhr dqekj ,d ,QvkbZvkj ysdj vk;k ftl ij eqdnek ua- 1@90 /kkjk 3] 3@9 vks-,l-,DV ,oa 120 ch Hkknla iathc) fd;k x;k tks fjiksVZ og dkal- yk;k Fkk og fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih- 1 gSA bl ij dk;Zokgh iqfyl esjs }kjk fy[kh xbZ bl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gSA bl fjiksVZ ds lkFk QnZ cjkenxh xksiuh; nLrkost Hkh izkIr gqbZ FkhA izn'kZ ih- 1 ds vk/kkj ij ,QvkbZvkj pkd dh x;h Fkh tks izn'kZ ih 90 gS bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA eqdnek ntZ djus ds rqjUr i'pkr~ tks/kiqj ds fy, eSa e; ,lvkbZ lqjs'k dqekj] dkaLVscy j.kohjflag o dka- jes'kpUnz ds jokuk gqvk FkkA tks/kiqj dk;kZy; ,lih fo'ks"k 'kk[kk tks/kiqj esa ge igqapsA ml fnu tks/kiqj esa Jh ,u ds vrjs fMokbZ,l ih] Jh ohjflag iqfyl fujh{kd] Jh Hkwjey tSu ,l-ih- ¼,l,lch½ vkfn ds c;ku 161 tk-QkS- ds vUrxZr ys[kc) fd;sA eqyfte eksgEen vLQkd ls iwNrkN dh o mls fxjrkj fd;kA ftldh QnZ fxjrkjh izn'kZ ih 17 cukbZ Fkh bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSa bl ij bZ ls ,Q mnZ esa eqyfte vLQkd ds gLrk{kj djk;s FksA fxjrkj eqy- eksgEen vLQkd us iwNrkN ds le; crk;k Fkk fd tsBkpkanu jsyos LVs'ku ds ,,l,e Jh 'kQh eksgEen ds ikl og dqN fnu igys gh tkdj vk;k Fkk vkSj mlls mlds laca/k ¼fj'rk½ gSA eqyfte ds bl dfFkr bdckyh c;ku ij izfrj{kk dh vksj ls vkifRr dh xbZ fygktk bl c;ku dks bl vkifRr ds en~ns utj gh fopkjk tkosxkA fnukad 8-3-90 dks eSa vU; eqykfteku o eqy- eksgEen bLgkd dks ysdj jsyos LVs'ku tsBkpkanu ftyk tSlyesj igqapkA tgka eqy pwafd eqyfte eksgEen vLQkd us crk;k Fkk fd eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen tklwlh esa lg;ksx dj jgk gSA bldh rLnhd gsrq 'kQh eksgEen ds DokVZj dh ryk'kh yh QnZ [kkuk ryk'kh cukbZ Fkh ftlesa mlds DokVZj esa ,d vyekjh esa j[kh uhys doj dh Mk;jh feyh FkhA Mk;jh vkfVZdy 3 ns[kdj crk;k fd ;gh oks Mk;jh gSA bl Mk;jh esa ,d Vªsl esi cjken gqvk Fkk ftlesa iks[kj.k tSlyesj xzke nsoM+k] dkyk vkfn lM+d ekxksZ] jsyos Vªsd vkfn dks n'kkZ;k gqvk gSA uD'kk izn'kZ Mh- 3 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS bl ij lh ls Mh 'kQh eksgEen ds gLrk{kj gSA 'kQh eksgEen ,,l,e tsBkpkanu jsyos LVs'ku rSukr FkkA eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen dks dB?kjs ds ikl [kM+s ns[kdj crk;k fd ;gh oks 'k[l gSA eSusa [kkuk ryk'kh dh QnZ izn'kZ ih- 22 cukbZ tks esjh [kqn dyeh gS o lh ls Mh esjh nLr[krh gS bl ij eqy- 'kQh eksgEen ds gLrk{kj bZ ls ,Q djok;s FksA bl ij , ls ch dwiflag ds] th ls ,p mEesnflag ds] vkbZ ls ts gLrk{kj ,u-ds- vrjs Mh-okbZ-,l-ih- ds gLrk{kj gSa tks esjs lkeus gq, FksA ftl edku dh ryk'kh yh Fkh ml edku dk uEcj Vh&4&1967 FkkA izn'kZ ih- 22 esa ds ls ,y esa eSusa DokVZj dk ua- Vh-4-1967 ds ctk; Vh-4@196 fy[k fn;k Fkk blesa vafre 7 dk vad lgou ls fy[kus ls jg x;k FkkA bl DokVZj ds iwoZ esa ukjk;.kjke ,,l,e dk DokVZj Fkk ftldk ua- Vh&4@196 7 FkkA eSaus vkfVZdy 3 Mk;jh esa uD'kk izn'kZ Mh-3 ik;k Fkk vkSj bl uD'ks esa tks LFkku n'kkZ;s gq, FksA mudks eSaus nwljs ns'k ds fy;s ykHkdkjh le>dj dCts esa fy;k FkkA eSusa Mk;jh vkfVZdy 3 [kksydj ns[kh Fkh vkSj bl Mk;jh esa 11 o 13 fnlEcj ds i`"Bksa vkSj rkjh[k 21 fnlEcj ds iUus ds vk/kk iUuk gS mu rhuksa iUuksa ij ikfdLrkuh yksxksa ds irs vafdr FksA fnukad 8-3-90 dks 'kQh eksgEen dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih- 19 fxjrkj fd;k Fkk ;g QnZ eSaus dka- j.kohjflag ls fy[kkbZ Fkh bl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS bl ij th ls ,p eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen ds gLrk{kj gSaA 8-3-90 dks eSa ckM+esj eqy- 'kQh eksgEen o vU; iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks lkFk ysdj igqap x;sA eqy- 'kQh eksgEen ds chekj gksus ls mls vLirky esa HkrhZ djokdj nwljs fnu eqyfte dk ih-lh- fjek.M fy;kA fn- 10-3-90 dks eqyfte dks lkFk ysdj tks/kiqj igqapsA eqy- eksgEen vLQkd dks vU; eqyfteku dh fxjrkjh esa igpku dj crkus ds dkj.k ,lvkbZ lqjs'k ,oa MhokbZ,lih ,u-ds- vrjs] ckM+esj ls 8-3-90 dks lakpkSj] ckdklj dh rjQ lkFk ysdj x;sA mEesn pkSd tks/kiqj esa eqy- 'kQh eksgEen ds edku dh [kkuk ryk'kh [kq'khZn o 'ksjflag dh mifLFkfr esa yh xbZA [kkuk ryk'kh esa 'kQh eksgEen dk Lo;a dk ikliksVZ vkfVZdy 4] utek ckuksa dk ikliksVZ vkfVZdy 5] 'kQh eksgEen dh 'kknh dk dkMZ vkfVZdy 6] 'kQh eksgEen dh iklcqd vkfVZdy 7] dkMZ 'kknh eqckjd vkfVZdy 8 dks tIr fd;s Fks ftldh QnZ [kkuk ryk'kh izn'kZ ih- 28 gSA bl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs] thls ,p 'kQh eksgEen ds gLrk{kj gSaA fnukad 13-3-90 dks eSa e; dka- j.kohj flag] ,lvkbZ lqjs'kdqekj] ,lvkbZ lksuflag dks lkFk ysdj dqpkeu flVh igqapk tgka eqy- NksVw [kka dh ryk'k dh og fnukad 14-3-90 dks fxjrkj gvk ftldh QnZ fxjrkjh izn'kZ ih 91 rS;kj dh Fkh tks esjh [kqn dyeh gS bl ij , ls ch esjs o NksVw [kka ds lh ls Mh gLrk{kj gSA eqyfte NksVw [kka dh tkek ryk'kh yh] eqyfte us lQsn isUV igu j[kh Fkh ftlds lkeus dh tsc esa 82@& #i;s Hkkjrh; eqnzk ds o nl #i;s ikfdLrku dh eqnzk ds cjken gq, vkSj ,d izfrcaf/kr ekmUVsu vkWxsZukbZts'ku fMo gsM DokVZj dk pkVZ feyk Fkk ftldh pkVZ izn'kZ ih 32 gS ftldh QnZ tIrh vyx ls cukbZ xbZ Fkh o ekSds ij gh lhy eksgj fd;k x;k Fkk og QnZ tIrh vyx ls cukbZ xbZ Fkh o ekSds ij gh lhy eksgj fd;k x;k Fkk og QnZ tIrh izn'kZ ih 92 gSA ftl ij lhy ds fu'kku gSaA bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa] ,Dl LFkku ij lhy dk uewuk gS] lh ls Mh LFkku ij eqyfte ds gLrk{kj gSaA xokgku ds gLrk{kj Hkh djok;s FksA fnukad 16-3-90 dks ckM+esj ls ck[kklj igqapkA fnukad 17-3-90 dks eqyfte pkan [kka dh fxjrkjh dhA QnZ fxjrkjh o tkek ryk'kh izn'kZ ih 93 gSaA eqyfte pkan [kka ds igus gq, dkys isUV ds nkfguh tsc esa 13@& #- ikfdLrkuh eqnzk ,oa 10@& #i;s Hkkjrh; eqnzk ,d dkys jax dk ilZ feyk Fkk ftlesa mldk ikliksVZ lkbZt QksVksa yxk gqvk Fkk] feyk Fkk vkSj ,d dkxt ij yky L;kgh ls fy[kk gqvk tkWu eksgEen djkaph dk i= feyk] i= izn'kZ ih-94 gS] ,d ykbZunkj dkxt ij iks[kj.k] tSlyesj fy[kk gqvk rFkk dqN ladsr fpUg cuk;k gqvk feyk Fkk tks izn'kZ ih 30 gS] ,;jQkslZ dk foKkiu 33 ,l ;w ds;j vkQ 56 ,ihvks izn'kZ ih 27 feyh Fkh] blds vykok eqyfte ds cfu;ku 'kVZ ds uhps isaV dh dej ds uhps ,d l'kL= lsukvksa dk lfp= lkIrkfgd vad rk- 142-88 izn'kZ ih 31 feyk Fkk] bl vad ds vUnj ,d VqdMk dkxt dk feyk ftlesa ikfdLrku ls 300@& #i;s izkIr fd;s] 300@& #i;s ekLVj jkepUnz dks fn;s] dk mYys[k gS tks izn'kZ ih 95 gS] bldh QnZ izn'kZ ih 93 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa] bl ij lh ls Mh pkan [kka ds gLrk{kj gSa] ,Dl o okbZ LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gSaA xokg bZ'kkd ds bZ ls ,Q djok;s Fks tks esjs lkeus fd;s Fks] xokg iwjok ds tsM LFkku ij vaxwBk fu'kkuh djok;s FksA blesa gqfy;k eqyfte ntZ gSA mij fy[ks vkfVZdYl tIr dj dCts esa ysus ds lEcU/k esa QnZ izn'kZ ih 96 rS;kj eSus djkbZ Fkh ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj , ls ch] bl ij eqyfte pkan [kka ds lh ls Mh rFkk bZ ls ,Q xokg bZ'kkd ds gLrk{kj gSaA fnukad 18-3-90 dks Jh ohjflag baLisDVj tks tks/kiqj ds }kjk eqyfte eks- vLQkd ls cjken vkfVZdYl tks 6-3-90 dks fn;s Fks] eq> vkbZ-vks- dks is'k fd;s ftldh QnZ tIrh izn'kZ ih 97 rS;kj dh Fkh ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa] lh ls Mh ohjflag ds] lqjs'k dqekj ds bZ ls ,Q xokg j.kohj flag ds th ls ,p gLrk{kj gSaA fnukad 20-3-90 dks eqyfte eksgEen vLQkd us ;g lwpuk nh Fkh fd eSa eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen dh yM+dh dks igpku ldrk gwa vkSj og eq>s igpkurh gSaA ¼;g dFku lk{; vf/kfu;e dh rkjh[k esa ugha vkus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDrksa dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa vkifRr dh xbZ gS vr% bl laca/k esa eqyfteku ds vf/koDrkx.k dh vkifRr ds en~ns utj gh izkFkhZ dk dFku ,slk vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkrk gS exj bldh xzkg;rk ckcr vafre fu.kZ; ds le; fopkj fd;k tkosxkA eSaus eqyfte }kjk nh xbZ bryk eSaus fy[kh tks QnZ izn'kZ ih 98 gS bl ij , ls ch esjs o lh ls Mh eqyfte eksgEen vLQkd ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ ih 98 ds vk/kkj ij eSa tks/kiqj igqapk ,l ih lhvkbZMh ¼tksu½ tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy; esa e; iqfyldfeZ;ksa ds igqapkA eSa tks/kiqj tkrs le; t;iqj ls eqy eksgEen bLQkd dks lkFk ysdj x;k FkkA fQj fnukad 21-3-90 dks ,l ih tksu ¼lhvkbZMh½ tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy; esa dqy 6 yMfd;ksa dks cqyok;k x;k ftlesa eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen dh yM+dh 'kckuksa Hkh FkhA eqyfte eks- vLQkd us mu yM+fd;ksa esa ls eqyfte 'kQh eksgEen dh yM+dh 'kckuk dks igpku fy;k ftldh igpku dh dk;Zokgh dh QnZ izn'kZ ih 99 rS;kj dh tks esjh [kqn dyeh gS o bl ij , ls ch esjs o lh ls Mh nLr[kr eksgEen vLQkd ds gSa] rFkk xokgku jkeflag o egsUnz ds bZ ls ,Q o th ls ,p gLrk{kj gSaA ¼bl ij Hkh vfHk;qDrksa dh vksj ls xzkg;rk ckcr vkifRr dh xbZ gS tks Hkh lqjf{kr j[kh xbZA blh izdkj mlh dk;kZy; esa eqy- eksgEen bLQkd dks yM+dh 'kckuk us vady dgdj esjs lkeus igpkuk Fkk ¼bl ij Hkh mDr izdkj ls vkifRr dh xbZ tks lqjf{kr j[kh xbZ½ lk{kh ls ihih bl laca/k esa QnZ lkfcr djokuk pkgrs gS tks n-iz-la- dh /kkjk 62 ls gsV gksrh gS blfy, vuqefr ugha nh xbZA fnukad 12-4-90 dks eqy- eksgEen 'kQh dks fxjrkj fd;k Fkk ftldh QnZ fxjrkjh izn'kZ ih 100 cukbZ tks esjh [kqn dyeh gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa] lh ls Mh eqyfte eksgEen 'kQh ds gLrk{kj gSa] xokgku ds gLrk{kj djok;s FksA eqyfteku ls cjken nLrkostksa ds lhYM fyQkQs [kqyok;s tkus gsrq Jheku lh-ts-,e- lkgc tks/kiqj ds le{k fnukad 13-4-90 dks nj[kkLr is'k dh Fkh tks izn'kZ ih 101 gS bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSa ftl ij lhts,e lkgc us bl dk;kZy; gsrq ,lhts,e 1 dks vkns'k izlkfjr fd;sA bl ij Jheku ,lhts,e ua- 1 tks/kiqj us muds le{k is'k fd;s x;s lhYM fyQkQksa dks [kksys tkus gsrq is'k fd;k og muds }kjk [kksys x;s ftUgksaus vius nLr[kr djds U;k;ky; dh lhy yxkbZ o feys nLrkostkr dk fooj.k vafdr fd;k vkSj eq>s okil dj fn;kA eftLVªsV dh dk;Zokgh izn'kZ ih 102 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA tks ,lhts,e 1 tks/kiqj lhYM fyQkQs is'k fd;s Fks ftUkdks mUgksaus [kksyk muds fyQkQs izn'kZ ih 103 ls izn'kZ ih 105 rFkk izn'kZ Mh 2 gSaA** PW 27 S.K. Sarin, Ltd. Col., in his statement stated as under: ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd ,Dth-ih- 35 esa esjs }kjk tks jk; nh xbZ gS] mlesa esjs }kjk ijhf{kr gjsd nLrkost ds lEcU/k esa vyx&vyx ,slh jk; ugha nh xbZ gS fd D;k ,slk gjsd nLrkost vyx-vyx vius vki esa ikfdLrku ;k nq'eu ns'k ds gkFk esa IkM+us ij fgUnqLrku ds fy;s [krjk iSnk dj ldrk FkkA vt [kqn dgk fd esjh jk; esa ,sls nLrkostkr esa fyf[kr dksbZ Hkh lwpuk nq'eu ds gkFk esa tkrh gS rks fgUnqLrku dh lqj{kk ds fy;s [krjukd gksrh gSA** 11. From the bare perusal of the extracted portion of statements of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellants, who were found to be spying and guilty of provisions of Section 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act, have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge. In these circumstance the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of merit and the same are rejected. The maximum sentence under section 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act is 14 years, but the Sessions Judge looking to the fact that the incident is of the year of 1990, sentenced the accused appellants for a period of 7 years. I have also gone through the findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge on the question of sentence and I am in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions Judge on this point. Arguments of the counsel for the appellants Chhotu Khan and Chad Khan for releasing them for the period already undergone by them is also devoid of merit, hence rejected. The sentence of 7 years RI is just and proper, but I am of the considered opinion that in such types of heinous offences the accused appellants should serve sentence for 7 years full and no remission should be given to them, particularly when they were caught spying, putting the Country as a whole at danger. Heinous offences the accused appellants should serve sentence for 7 years full and no remission should be given to them, particularly when they were caught spying, putting the Country as a whole at danger. 12. For these reasons the appeals filed by the accused appellants are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated March 9, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge Jaipur City stand confirmed. I may add that in such types of heinous offences the accused appellants should serve the full sentence upto 7 years without getting any remission.