JUDGMENT SABINA, J. Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals, filed through Punjab State Legal Service Authority, would be disposed of as the appellants have challenged the judgment/ order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the trial Court, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 3 and 4 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (the ‘OS’ Act), Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the ‘F’ Act) and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Prosecution story in brief is that on 9.11.2005, Jagnahar Singh told Inspector Gobinder Singh that the appellants were residents of Pakistan and had entered India without passports. The appellants were roaming around in India and conveying secret information about Indian Army, Ammunition Dumps, location of Army, Airports, bridges and the movement of the Army (in India) to the higher authorities in Pakistan and they were acting in inimical manner towards India and it may endanger the security of the country. The appellants were going to various places of Military to collect information and were spies of Pakistan. Appellants were also sending messages to the authorities in Pakistan through E-mail. Appellants were having map of India in their possession. They were seen wandering in the area of Jalandhar Cantt. On the basis of the said information, FIR No.107 dated 9.11.2005 under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act, Section 14 of the ‘F' Act, Section 24 of E.M.Act and Section 120, 124-A, 471 IPC was registered at Police Station Cantt. Jalandhar. Inspector Gobinder Singh along with other police officials went to military hospital, Jalandhar Cantt, where appellant Khurram Shahzad Ali @ Juned Aalam (hereinafter referred as A-1) was seen coming with a bag hanging on his shoulder. The Intelligence Officer of the Army was also accompanying the said Inspector at that time. Jalandhar. Inspector Gobinder Singh along with other police officials went to military hospital, Jalandhar Cantt, where appellant Khurram Shahzad Ali @ Juned Aalam (hereinafter referred as A-1) was seen coming with a bag hanging on his shoulder. The Intelligence Officer of the Army was also accompanying the said Inspector at that time. When the bag of A-1 was searched, it contained 61 visiting cards, photographs of his father and mother, some plans of army installation, diaries, slip pads, 10 Dinar currency notes, one letter of G.M.Railway Coach Factory, one traffic challan, one job card, one photocopy of driving licence, one Amways business card, one pass book of Bank of Punjab, one cheque book of Bank of Punjab, one phone Nokia, driving licence of Mohan Singh and Ashwani Kumar, photocopy of notes dealing, training notes Indian Army, canal crossing notes, one page, canal crossing note in English one page, restricted documents pertaining to Army exercise 2 pages, identity card of Pavitra Samrai, receipt of Western Union one bag containing Rs. 18,562/- . All the said documents were taken in possession. On personal search of A-1 Rs. 590/- and one railway ticket was recovered from his right pant pocket. Arrest memo of the A-1 was prepared. During interrogation A-1 disclosed that appellant Mohd. Iqbal (hereinafter referred as A-2) was waiting for him at Rama Mandi Chowk. On the next day, Inspector Gobinder Singh along with A-1 and other police officials went to Rama Mandi Chowk and A-2 was apprehended. From one black bag recovered from A-2, 10 receipts of Western Union, Ration card of Abdul Quim, map of Punjab defence force, identity card of Abdul Quim, photocopy of learning licence, 2 small diaries, handwritten accounts notes, RC of motor cycle Yamaha, driving licence of Abdul Quim, passport size 2 photographs of Mohd. Iqbal and his wife, photograph of Indian Army, photographs of Abdul Quim, paper slips in Urdu, receipt of registered post, two mobile phones, Indian currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- were recovered. All the said articles were taken in possession. On personal search of A-2 Rs. 500/- and one bus ticket were recovered. On 20.11.2005, A-1 was again interrogated and he disclosed that he used to send E-mails and messages to Pakistan with regard to secrets of Indian Army from two shops situated in Model Town, Jalandhar. 10,000/- were recovered. All the said articles were taken in possession. On personal search of A-2 Rs. 500/- and one bus ticket were recovered. On 20.11.2005, A-1 was again interrogated and he disclosed that he used to send E-mails and messages to Pakistan with regard to secrets of Indian Army from two shops situated in Model Town, Jalandhar. At the instance of A-1, Central Processing Unit of the computer from the shops of Jatinder Kumar and Navneesh were taken in possession. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused. Charges against the accused were framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act, Section 14 of the ‘F' Act and Section 471 of IPC, by the trial Court on 3.6.2006. Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 11 witnesses. After close of prosecution evidence A-1, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and Pakistani national. I was a student in Pakistan and had come to India to see cricket matches between the cricket teams of India and Pakistan. My passport number is KC-316356 and I had entered India through Attari check post via Samjauta Express train. I was issued nine days visa to see cricket matches but the police of Police station Gharaunda, District Amritsar arrested me and handed over me to the army of India and army registered his fake case at police station cantt.Jalandhar. I never entered illegally or unlawfully nor done any act and against the State of India. I never made any disclosure statement. No recovery of any alleged incriminating document including the alleged site plan of any location was recovered from me. And neither any document is in my travelling. There is no evidence against me. Police and army created bogus documents and produced false witnesses against me. This is a fake case and PWs have deposed falsely against me being Pakistani national. I am not a spy from Pakistan but a tourist visitor.” A-2, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:- “I am innocent. I have committed no offence against the government of India. I had come to India as a tourist and I am not a spy. I am not a spy from Pakistan but a tourist visitor.” A-2, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:- “I am innocent. I have committed no offence against the government of India. I had come to India as a tourist and I am not a spy. I had come to see cricket matches between the cricket teams of India and Pakistan. I entered through Attari check post. Police of Police station Gharaunda, District Amritsar arrested me and kept me in illegal custody and then handed over me to the Indian Army, which got registered this fake case at police station cantt. Jalandhar. I never suffered any disclosure statement. No recovery of any incriminating articles has been effected from me. No document in my hand was recovered from me and thus, this learned court can get these documents compared to verify this as I am ready to give my specimen handwriting. Fake case has been fabricated. I am innocent foreigner and I have done nothing against Government of India.” Appellants examined four witnesses in their defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, AI had come to India on a valid visa to see cricket matches being played in India on 24.3.2005. His visa was to expire on 31.3.2005. However, AI was taken in custody at Amritsar and later on he was falsely involved in the present case. So far as A-2 is concerned, he did not have any valid visa to visit India but had been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Ex.PA, FIR No.35 dated 31.3.2005 registered at Police Station Gharaunda under Section 14 of the ‘F’ Act. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that both the appellants were caught in India without any valid visa. The visa of A-1 had admittedly expired on 31.3.2005. He was apprehended on 19.11.2005. A-1 along with A-2 had been indulging in the alleged crime and the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellants. So far as Ex.PA was concerned, the same was not related to A-1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Inspector Gobinder Singh as PW-7. So far as Ex.PA was concerned, the same was not related to A-1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Inspector Gobinder Singh as PW-7. The said witness deposed as per the prosecution story with regard to arrest of the appellants and recovery of incriminating articles from them. PW-4 ASI Mohan Singh has duly corroborated the statement of PW-7. PW-1 HC Bhupinder Singh has proved on record FIR Ex.PA. However, a perusal of the said FIR reveals that the same does not relate to A-1. The said FIR relates to accused Shehzad, who had entered India on 7.3.2005 and his visa expired on 14.3.2005. The passport number of the said person is KC 428273. However, so far as A-1 is concerned, he had a valid visa from 18.3.2005 to 31.3.2005 and had entered India on 24.3.2005. His passport No. Is KC 316356. PW-2 Ashwani Kumar deposed that the driving licence at Sr.No.12858 had been issued to Abdul son of Mohd. Islamu Din. PW-4 Col. Hardev Singh Kandhola deposed that on 19.1.2006, he had been shown the articles which were recovered from the appellants. The documents shown to him were in possession of an unauthorized person and their transmission to some other country would have proved dangerous to the security, sovereignty and safety of India. If the maps had been transmitted to some other country they could cause harm to Indian Military, civilians and property of India. He had issued the certificate Ex.PH with regard to seriousness of the documents recovered from the appellants. PW-5 Raja Singh deposed that driving licence No.10767 dated 29.7.2005 had been issued in the name of A-1. PW-6 Phool Chand deposed that A-1 had opened the account No.SB-19208 by depositing Rs. 79,183.78 P. through Western Union. PW-8 Jatinder Singh deposed that A-1 had been visiting his computer shop in the month of May 2005 and used to leave after using the internet. His Central Processing Unit from the shop was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.P-1. PW-9 Gurpreet Singh deposed that on 1.9.2005, A-1 had come to their branch to withdraw payment but the same could not be done without opening an account. Then A-1 opened account No.SB 144 19208 in their branch and thereafter withdrew the payment from the account. PW-9 Gurpreet Singh deposed that on 1.9.2005, A-1 had come to their branch to withdraw payment but the same could not be done without opening an account. Then A-1 opened account No.SB 144 19208 in their branch and thereafter withdrew the payment from the account. PW-11 Amarjit Kaur, Clerk deposed that as per their record, motorcycle bearing No.PB-08-AL-4402 was registered in the name of Jatin Khosla. DW-1 Sanjiv Kumar proved Ex.DA, whereby cancellation report in FIR No. 110 dated 22.11.2005 registered at police station Cantt. Jalandhar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC was accepted against the appellants. DW-2 Avnish Sharma proved Ex.DB and Ex.DC. As per the said documents, A-1 had a valid visa to visit Delhi and Bangalore from 21.3.2005 to 31.3.2005. DW-3 Mohd. Alam deposed that on 25.3.2005 A-1 was allotted Room No.202 in their hotel and he checked out from the hotel on 30.3.2005 at 4.00 P.M. As per their record, A-1 had entered India on 24.3.2005. He had paid all the bills of the hotel. DW-4 Ved Parkash deposed that no list was maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs for counseling the Pakistan Nationals who visit India for witnessing cricket match. Only list of the persons who are to be counseled was supplied by the Ministry. In the said list only name of A-1 figured. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case that A-1 was apprehended on 19.11.2005 without any valid visa, whereas, A-2 was apprehended on 20.11.2005 without any valid visa in his possession. Further the documents recovered from them were dangerous to the security, sovereignty and safety of India. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that A-1 had come to India on a valid visa but had later on been arrested in Amritsar is not established from record. Although A-1 has stated, when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was arrested by the police of police station Gharaunda but he has failed to establish the said plea. No material has been placed on record with regard to arrest of A-1 by the police of police station Gharaunda. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the appellants that A-1 was arrested in FIR Ex.PA is liable to be rejected because the said FIR does not relate to A-1. So far as A-2 is concerned, he was not having any valid visa. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the appellants that A-1 was arrested in FIR Ex.PA is liable to be rejected because the said FIR does not relate to A-1. So far as A-2 is concerned, he was not having any valid visa. He has taken the plea that he was arrested by police of police station Gharaunda and had been kept in illegal custody but the same is also not substantiated on record. The witnesses examined by the appellants in their defence fail to advance the case of the appellants regarding their innocence. Since the prosecution had been successful in proving its case, the trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction of the appellants under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act, Section 14 of the ‘F Act and Section 471 IPC. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act, Section 14 of the ‘F Act and Section 471 IPC, are upheld. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants under Sections 3 and 4 of the ‘OS’ Act is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 14 years to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The sentence as ordered by the trial Court under Section 14 of the ‘F' Act and Section 471 of IPC are upheld.