Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2325 (RAJ)

Manish Dhar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-19

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has moved the stay application for staying the conviction, but he has not prepared the case, so he wants an adjournment in the matter. He has also requested to this Court that whether prayer made by him at this juncture should be accepted or not, is the discretion of the Court. The request so made is turned down and he is directed to argue the matter. 2. Heard on the stay application filed for staying the impugned judgment of conviction dated 4.7.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Sati Nivaran, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 20.4.2001, Sh. V.K. Gupta, Deputy Secretary (Finance) has lodged a report against the petitioner to the effect that on 29.3.2001, the then Finance Minister has presented budget for the year 2001-2002 and that at the relevant time, some member of the Legislative Assembly shown some documents on the floor and protested that there is a breach of official secret. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and found that documents distributed to the press are different from those documents, which were shown on the floor. An F.I.R. to that effect was lodged for the offence under Sections 409, 420/120-B I.P.C. and Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(2) of Official Secrets Act and also under Section 65 of Information and Technology Act. 4. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Court. The Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 409/120-B I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(a) of Official Secrets Act and Section 72 of Information and Technology Act. The petitioner denied for the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 42 witnesses and got exhibited 508 documents. Thereafter statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after hearing all the parties, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under: (i) Under Section 5(1)(a) of Official Secrets Act: Sentenced to undergo two years SI and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months SI; (ii) Under Section 120-B I.P.C. : Sentenced to undergo six months' SI and fine of ? 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months SI; (ii) Under Section 120-B I.P.C. : Sentenced to undergo six months' SI and fine of ? 5000and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI; (iii) Under Section 72 of Information and Technology Act: Sentenced to undergo one year SI and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month SI. 5. Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court wherein sentence awarded to the appellant has been suspended vide order dated 19.7.2013, hence the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, he moved this stay application for staying the conviction awarded to him as the department has passed an order dated 30.7.2013, which reads as under: " vr% dkfeZd ( d&3 ) foHkkx ds ifji= d0i0 2 ( 31 ) dkfeZd@d&3@96 fnukad 31-12-1996 ds fcUnq la[;k 7 ( 2 ) ds vUrxZr l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk jkT; lsod dks vijkf/kd vkjksiksa ij fl) Bgjk;s tkus ds laca/k esa fn;s x;s fn'kk funs'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa vc v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ mDr Jh euh"k nj] lwpuk lgk;d ( iwoZ inuke & MkVk ,UV~h vkWijsVj ) dks ,rn~}kjk rqjUr izHkko ls lsok ls c[kkZLr (Dismissal from service) djrs gSA Jh nj dks fnukad 20-4-2001 ls 9-1-2013 rd dh fuyEcu vof/k esa fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;s x;s thou fuokZg HkRrs ds vfrfjDr mDr vof/k ls lacaf/kr vU; dksbZ ifjykHk ns; ugha gksaxsA " 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that conviction passed against the appellant may also be stayed as this Court has already suspend the sentence. If the conviction is not stayed, the entire career of the appellant would be soiled/ruined. It is also contended that the appellant is the only male earning member in his family to get livelihood for himself and his family members and hearing of appeal will take time, hence conviction should be stayed. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in (i) 2001(3) WLC (Raj.) 411 Kanhaiya v. State ; (ii) 2005(2) RCC 884-Laxman Lai & Anr. v. State ; (iii) 2007(1) RCC 365-Mahendra Pal Singh v. State; and (iv) 2004(1) RCC 27-Laxman Lai & Anr. v. State. 7. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in (i) 2001(3) WLC (Raj.) 411 Kanhaiya v. State ; (ii) 2005(2) RCC 884-Laxman Lai & Anr. v. State ; (iii) 2007(1) RCC 365-Mahendra Pal Singh v. State; and (iv) 2004(1) RCC 27-Laxman Lai & Anr. v. State. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same and contended that against such type of person where conviction and sentence has been awarded for the aforesaid offence, conviction should not be stayed. Further, it has been contended that the appellant has committed breach of confidentiality, privacy and also misused his power. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order dated 4.7.2013 and judgments cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the act of the accused appellant that he has committed the breach of confidentiality and privacy as enshrined under the mandatory provisions of the law as also Constitution. It is the duty of the petitioner to protect official secrets of his office as required by law. 9. Accordingly, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the order dated 4.7.2013 staying the operation of conviction as awarded by the Trial Court as indicated above. The stay petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to move the application for early listing of this appeal.Petition dismissed. *******