In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that recording a conversation in a police station does not violate the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The court quashed the charges under the Act filed against two applicants, stating that a police station is not classified as a “prohibited place” under the law, and therefore, the charges for spying do not stand.
Background of the Case
The judgment was delivered in Criminal Application No. 3421 of 2022 in the case of Subhash Rambhau Athare and Santosh Rambhau Athare vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. The case revolved around an FIR registered as Crime No. 710/2022 on July 19, 2022 at the Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar. The applicants, Subhash Rambhau Athare, aged 31, and Santosh Rambhau Athare, a 35-year-old police constable, sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent charges, including offenses under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether recording a conversation inside a police station constitutes an offense under the Official Secrets Act, which deals with penalties for spying in “prohibited places” or disclosing secret information that could compromise state security. The police had invoked the Act, arguing that the applicants’ actions of videography and alleged intimidation of police personnel at the station fell within the scope of the Act’s provisions.
Court’s Observations and Decision
A bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar rejected this argument, observing that under the Act, a police station is not classified as a “prohibited place.” The court specifically referenced Section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act, which defines “prohibited places,” and pointed out that a police station does not fall within this category. Furthermore, Section 3, which deals with “penalties for spying,” applies to places and actions that are directly prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state, which the court ruled was not relevant in this case.
In their judgment, the court remarked:
“Anything done in the police station is absolutely not included under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. Under such circumstances, the ingredients of the said section are not at all attracted.”
The court emphasized that the essence of the Official Secrets Act is to protect sensitive locations and information that could threaten national security if disclosed, a situation not applicable to routine police station matters. Thus, it quashed the charges under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act but allowed proceedings to continue under other applicable sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicants were represented by Advocate A.G. Ambetkar, while APP N.R. Dayama appeared for the State of Maharashtra and the respondent, Nilesh Gulab Mhaske, a police constable at the Pathardi Police Station.
