JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 10th June, 2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in complaint No.2-S/2 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act for 14 years and for offence under Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, he was convicted to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-. For offence under Section 6(a)(c)(e) of the Official Secrets Act he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000. For offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. For offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. For offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-. All the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, as aforesaid, the appellant has been ordered to be sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for one year. 2. The brief facts of the case are that accused named Senjam Nongdrem Khomba Singh, alias Senjam Ching Thang Khomba Singh and Senjam Basil Singh, resident of Village, Taothong Lamkhai, District Imphal West (Manipur), with a purpose prejudicial to the safety and interest of the State was un-authorizedly visiting ARTRAC a prohibited place of army in Shimla and collecting information which might tend directly or indirectly to help enemy country, in respect of defence matters. Such activity on part of the accused was likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of State, as well as friendly relations of the country with foreign State. Consequent to such desire, the accused had been visiting ARTRAC area in Shimla, to collect information. Accused was residing in Flat No.3, Set No.8, near St. Marry School, Goyal Apartments, Sandal Estate, Chakkar and posing himself as Army Captain and some times as a Major. Consequent to such desire, the accused had been visiting ARTRAC area in Shimla, to collect information. Accused was residing in Flat No.3, Set No.8, near St. Marry School, Goyal Apartments, Sandal Estate, Chakkar and posing himself as Army Captain and some times as a Major. On receipt of such information, Station House Officer/Inspector Ashok Kumar, Police Station (West), Shimla (PW- 29), entered rapat, dated 21st October, 2003 in Daily Diary (Ex.PAA) and visited Goyal Apartments, Chakkar, after associating Municipal Counsellor Harish Kumar (PW-1), Sanjeev Sharma, Sub Inspector Hem Raj (PW-28), Dy. S.P. Digvijay Negi and knocked door of the flat of the accused. Accused on opening the door came out and introduced himself as a Major Senjam Chingthang Khomba Singh of Rashtriya Rifles. On demand showed identity card No. HB-101414, in which his name was recorded as Senjam Basil Singh, service INT CD rank Major Duty Officer and signed by S.B. Singh, Directing Officer HUM Int. Bureau. Accused on being asked disclosed to be an Intelligence Officer and produced identity card No.8104014-HB showing his name Senjam Niggamba Singh, service sepoy, CD rank. Ashok Kumar, Inspector doubting credentials of the accused, called military Intelligence Officer, to the spot, to verify the identity of the accused, as an Army officer. The Intelligence Officer informed that the accused was not an Army officer. 3. Further the case of the prosecution is that consequently search of the residential premises of the accused was carried out in presence of the witnesses and led to recovery of 19 files from his drawing room containing description of Al-Auaida, LTTE etc., a banned organization. The files under memo, (Ex.PA) were seized. Two identity cards of the accused were found and taken into possession under memo, Ex.PB. One brief case (Ex.P-20), was found in the house of the accused, having certain identity cards and some engineering instruments like compass, Geometry Box, alive cartridges of different arms, fake pass ports in the names of different persons, one digital diary, two cassettes, gun and pistol. Cartridges were sealed in a cloth parcel and kept in a sealed tin box and taken into possession under memo Ex. PC. From almirah of the house of the accused, two army uniforms were recovered. One shirt was half sleeve and another shirt of uniform was of full sleeve having separate trousers. Cartridges were sealed in a cloth parcel and kept in a sealed tin box and taken into possession under memo Ex. PC. From almirah of the house of the accused, two army uniforms were recovered. One shirt was half sleeve and another shirt of uniform was of full sleeve having separate trousers. One army jacket bearing Ashoka mark with one badge having recommendation of Chief of Army Staff were recovered. Shirts (Exts. P-33 and P-34) of the uniform were having three stars on the shoulder, one cap (Ex. P-35) and some badges were in the almirah and all these articles were seized under memo, Ex.PD. Further search of the house led to recovery of 9 stamps (Exts. P-37 to P-45), stamp pads (Ext.P46 to P-48) were taken into possession under Memo Ex.PD. Some blank identity cards were also found and taken into possession under memo Ex.PE. Accused produced identity cards Exhibits P-49 and Ex.P-50 to the police. 4. It was thus alleged that accused came to Shimla in January, 2003, bought a flat in Chakkar for Rs.3.5 lakhs and since then started frequently visiting ARTRAC area which is prohibited area and developed intimate relations with L/N Lokindro posted in ARTRAC Shimla. He had kept Army dresses, badges and other security related documents and prohibited ammunition and impersonated Major or Captain of the Indian Army. He was possessing D.O., letter of Cap. Yogender Singh of 20 R.R. and was an active member of the outlawed underground organization United National Liberation Front and had undergone two months training in Burma for that organization. Earlier, was arrested twice by Manipur Police. Ashok Kumar Inspector after search and recovery sent rukka, Ex.PEE to Police Station (West), Shimla, where on its basis, FIR, Ex.PFF, was entered by Inspector B.D. Bhatia (PW- 25). During Investigation, specimen writings and signatures of accused were obtained in presence of Shri Gian Chand Negi, Tehsildar (PW-9) and sent for comparison alongwith documents, identity cards recovered from the accused, to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, were examined by Visheshwar Sharma(PW-18) and opined vide report, Ex.PY, disputed writings and specimen writings of the accused to be of one and the same person. District Magistrate, Shimla, accorded sanction, Ex.PX to prosecute the accused for offences under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and the Central Government had accorded sanction (Ext. District Magistrate, Shimla, accorded sanction, Ex.PX to prosecute the accused for offences under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and the Central Government had accorded sanction (Ext. PT) to prosecute the accused for offence under the Official Secrets Act and authorized Shri J.P. Thakur, Superintendent of Police, Shimla to lodge a complaint against the accused. 5. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 6. The accused was charged for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c), 5(1)(c), 6(a)(c) (e), 6(d) of the Official Secrets Act, Section 25 (sic.15) of the Arms Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. 7. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. 8. The appellant/accused is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal. 9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the Court below, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 10. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 11. 10. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 11. For gauging the tenability of findings of conviction recorded qua the accused having committed offences under Section 3(1)(a)(c) and Section 5(1)(c) and also for his standing conviction for his having committed offences constituted under Section 6(a)(c) and (e) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions engrafted in the aforesaid Sections of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923. Section 3(1)(a)(c) of the Official Secrets Act reads as under:- “3. Penalties for Spying – (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State:- (a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; (b) make any sketch, plan, model, or note with is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; (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 its intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an 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]” Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 192 of 2013 reads as under:- “5. Wrongful communication. etc., of information. Wrongful communication. etc., of information. (1) If any person having in his possession or control any secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or relates to anything in such a place, 2*[or which is likely to assist, directly or indirectly, an 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 or which has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act,] or which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under Government, or which he has obtained or to which he has had access owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under Government, or as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of Government, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract:- (a) willfully communicates the code or pass word, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information to any person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it, or a Court of Justice or a person to whom it is, in the interests of the State, his duty to communicate it; (b) uses the information in his possession for the benefit of any foreign power or in any other manner prejudicial to the safety of the State; (c) retains the sketch, plan, model, article, note or document in his possession or control when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or willfully fails to comply with all directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof.” Section 6 of the Official Secret Acts reads as under:- “6. Unauthorised use of uniforms; falsification of reports, forgery, personation, and false documents. Unauthorised use of uniforms; falsification of reports, forgery, personation, and false documents. (1) If any person for the purpose of gaining admission or of assisting any other person to gain admission to a prohibited place or for any other purpose prejudicial to the safety to the State:- (a) uses or wears, without lawful authority, any naval, military, air force, police or other official uniform, or any uniform so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, or falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such uniform; (b) orally, or in writing in any declaration or application, or in any document signed by him or on his behalf, knowingly makes or connives at the making of any false statement or any omission; (c) forges, alters, or tampers with any passport or any naval, military, air force, police, or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document of a similar character (hereinafter in this section referred to as an official document) or knowingly uses or has in his possession any such forged, altered or irregular official document; (d) personates, or falsely represents himself to be, a person holding, or in the employment of a person holding, office under Government, or to be or not to be a person to whom an official document or secret official code or pass word has been duly issued or communicated, or with intent to obtain an official document, secret official code or pass word, whether for himself or any other person, knowingly makes any false statement; (e) uses, or has in has possession or under his control, without the authority of the department of the Government or the authority concerned, any die, seal or stamp of or belonging to, or used, made or provided by, any department of the Government, or by any diplomatic, naval, military, or air force authority appointed by or acting under the authority of Government, or any die, seal or stamp so nearly resembling any such die, seal or stamp as to be calculated to deceive, or counterfeits any die, seal or stamp, or knowingly uses, or has in his possession or under his control, any such counterfeited die, seal or stamp; he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.” 12. The accused came to be charged for the offence under Section 3(1)(a) of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923. An offence under Section 3(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is constituted in case the evidence on record portrays that the appellant had approached, inspected, accessed over or was in the vicinity or entered any prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State and proceeds to also infringe the prohibition engrafted in sub clause (b) and (c) in case emanating from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, that his purpose thereof was for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State. It stands un-controvertedly proved that ARTRAC located at Shimla is a prohibited place. It houses the head quarters of the Army Training Command. There has to be on record cogent, adequate and satisfactory evidence to prove the factum of the accused having infringed the mandate of the afore extracted provisions, inasmuch as his having visited, gained access in the prohibited area, as the Army Training Command is, with a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State and such entry was gained under impersonation comprised in a misrepresentation to the officers manning the prohibited area, of his being Major in the Army which he was not. However, no such evidence exists on record that his by visiting the prohibited place as deposed by PW-6 (Khub Chand), PW-7 (Rajesh Kumar), PW-24 (Vijay Kumar Bali) and PW-26 (Hauldar Vinod Pathania), he also infringed the mandate of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, as such, his prohibitive act necessitated entailment of conviction upon him. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant/accused for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 necessitate interference by this Court and are set aside. 13. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant/accused for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 necessitate interference by this Court and are set aside. 13. The learned trial Court while recording findings of conviction against the accused for his having committed offences punishable under Section 3(1) (c) and Section 5(1) (c) of the Official Secrets Act had remained oblivious to the factum of it being enjoined upon the prosecution to prove that the offence constituted by the accused having approached, inspected, passed over or being in the vicinity of or entered into any prohibited place, was with the purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State besides, it had to be proved that the conditions mandated in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 enjoining that the accused had made any sketch, plan, model or note which was calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly, useful to any enemy or had obtained, collected, recorded or published or communicated to any other person any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which was calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to any enemy, hence, had come to be proved by adduction of cogent evidence on record, as such satisfactorily proved. Proof of the aforesaid conditions mandated in the provisions afore referred were enjoined to be combinedly and conjointly proved for securing conviction under the afore referred provisions of the Official Secrets Act. However, the prosecution to prove the factum of the accused having infracted the mandate of clauses (b) & (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, has relied upon the documents existing in an open folder which purportedly communicated the factum of the accused/appellant having, hence, infracted the provisions of clause (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Officials Secrets Act, rendering him as such amenable to conviction. The prosecution though, has relied upon the documents as exist in files (Exts.P-1 to P-19), rather the aforesaid files are loose folders and obviously, theirs hence being not in a sealed condition, rendered an easy introduction of the documents found therein, at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The prosecution though, has relied upon the documents as exist in files (Exts.P-1 to P-19), rather the aforesaid files are loose folders and obviously, theirs hence being not in a sealed condition, rendered an easy introduction of the documents found therein, at the instance of the Investigating Officer. In other words, the documents recited in loose folders cannot, hence, constrain a conclusion of theirs being recovered from the possession of the accused nor also it can be held that the accused had made any sketch, plan, model or note which was directly or indirectly useful to any enemy of the State, especially then none of the aforesaid documents also do not invite attraction of the prohibition mandated in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act. Consequently, the recitals of the documents existing or occurring in loose folders, though hence may portray to be connoting the accused having carried out unlawful activities as also his having infringed the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, as such, his having invited the in-culpability of the accused under Section 3(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act, nonetheless, they loose their probative force in the face of their existence in loose folders, whereto they have been inferred hereinabove to have been easily introduced by the Investigating Officer. In aftermath, it has to be invincibly concluded that the aforesaid documents purportedly significatory of the accused having infracted the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act as also his having infracted the provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, when rather demonstrated by the aforesaid reasoning afforded by this Court to be neither infracted nor also the documents aforesaid having been, hence, recovered from the possession of the accused, the recording of findings of conviction against the accused by the learned trial Court for his having committed offences punishable under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act necessitates interference and its being set aside. 14. The accused was also convicted for his having committed offences punishable under Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act. 14. The accused was also convicted for his having committed offences punishable under Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act. However, the essence of infraction of the provisions as envisaged under Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act which invite the penalty as contemplated therein is of the accused having retained the sketch, plan, model article, note or document in his possession or control which he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it. However, there is no potent nor satisfactory evidence on record except the documents existing in a loose folder which for the reasons aforesaid cannot be attributed to be recovered from the possession of accused in a lawful manner so as to fasten liability for his having carried them, as such, besides when the documents exist in a loose folders, which hence do not upsurge any inference of theirs having been recovered in a lawful manner from the possession of the accused, the further factum of no documents existing therein comprising any sketch, plan, model, article, note which the accused had no right to retain or when it was contrary to his duty to retain it or willfully fails to comply with the directions issued by the lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof, renders open an apt conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove by adduction of cogent and adequate evidence, the infraction of the provisions of Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act at the instance of the accused, as such, the findings of conviction recorded under the aforesaid provisions of Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 against the accused are set aside. 15. The accused was also charged, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for his having committed offences punishable under Section 6(a) (c) and (e) and Section 6(d) of the Official Secrets Act. Further fortification to the aforesaid prohibitive act having been committed by the accused is lent by the evidence existing on record portraying the factum of the accused wearing without authority official uniform of Army as also his having falsely represented himself to be a Major. The evidence qua the factum of the accused having personated, or falsely represented himself to be a Major in the army is comprised in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, whose depositions are discussed hereinafter. The evidence qua the factum of the accused having personated, or falsely represented himself to be a Major in the army is comprised in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, whose depositions are discussed hereinafter. PW-6, Khub Ram and PW-7, Rajesh Kumar in tandem and unison have deposed that the accused had introduced himself to them as a Major. Moreover, he had applied to Punita Bhardwaj (PW-8), Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla, for armed licence by moving an application (Ex.PJ), claiming himself to be an army officer of Intelligence Core. He had also affixed his photographs on the application. PW-8 Punita Bhardwaj also deposes that accused introduced himself as a Major posted in Intelligence Corps of ARTRAC, Shimla. PW-10 Sardar Manvir Singh, Arms Dealer also deposes that the accused had visited his shop in the year 2003 at different occasions. He has further deposed that the accused had introduced himself as a Major employed in the army and he had disclosed to him that he wanted to purchase a fire arm. PW-11, Surinder Malik, a hotel owner, deposed in his deposition qua the factum of the accused having stayed in his hotel and his having claimed himself to be an army Captain and making an apposite entry in the visitor book. PW-12, Vikash Kumar deposes that he visited the house of the accused at Chakkar and noticed his photograph in army uniform and also saw the accused loitering in ARTRAC area as well as its library. PW-13 Vikas Goyal of LIC Housing Finance Limited deposes that accused introduced himself as a Major in Army posted in ARTRAC for obtaining house loan. For obtaining loan, application (Ex.PM), was filled in by the accused and he also pasted his photographs (Ext.PM/1). On the form, accused mentioned his address as Additional DTG Officer and filed therewith salary certificate (Ext.PN), purported to be issued by Adjutant Communication and Broadcasting Bureau (HSI). 16. PW-23, Khom Dram Samarjit Singh deposed that his brother, Khom Dram Satish Kumar Singh was posted as Captain in the Indian Army in Unit-20, Rashtriya Rifles, who died on 27th November, 2001. On 12th December, 2001, accused visited his house and introduced himself as Capt. Basil Singh Senjam and that his late brother was his good friend. 16. PW-23, Khom Dram Samarjit Singh deposed that his brother, Khom Dram Satish Kumar Singh was posted as Captain in the Indian Army in Unit-20, Rashtriya Rifles, who died on 27th November, 2001. On 12th December, 2001, accused visited his house and introduced himself as Capt. Basil Singh Senjam and that his late brother was his good friend. He had been visiting the house frequently and after familiarizing, accused took away the cap, belt, photo copy of the identity card of his deceased brother and had promised to get benefits released from Army qua the death of his brother. A letter written by Col. Yogender Singh to his brother was also taken by the accused. Accused subsequently intimated him that he had become a Major in the Army. PW-26, Hauldar Vinod Pathania deposes that the accused introduced himself as Major S.B. Singh and he also found the accused sitting in library of the ARTRAC. From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, it is proved that the accused was wearing without any lawful authority Army uniform and in pursuance thereto he was falsely representing himself to be a Major and Captain. Moreover, he was also found in possession forged passports (Exts. P-22 to P-25), hence, it stands proved by adduction of cogent and abundant evidence on record by the prosecution that the accused had forged the passports (Exts.P-22 to P-25) for the purpose of cheating, as such, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC and which passports had been used fraudulently and dishonestly by the accused as genuine, as such, he is guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC. 17. The accused was also convicted by the learned trial Court for an offence punishable 25 of the Arms Act for his having found in exclusive and conscious possession 17 live cartridges of different arms without any valid licence. The evidence existing on record satisfactorily proved the factum of the cartridges being recovered from the house of the accused as also of the accused having failed to produce a valid licence for having them in his possession. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, one cartridge was of 7.62 mm, two were of 9 mm, four were 7.65 mm and ten were .22 mm. 18. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, one cartridge was of 7.62 mm, two were of 9 mm, four were 7.65 mm and ten were .22 mm. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is modified and the accused/appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 6(a)(c)(e) and 6(d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. He is further convicted for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Consequently, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term which he has already undergone for the aforesaid offences for which he stands convicted by this Court. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other offence.