Can’t Be Allowed To Go Scot Free Merely On Account Of Purported Infirmity In Procedure: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Of Naval Officers In Conspiracy Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Petitions of naval officers against the Order on charge and framing of charge passed by the Special Judge.

A case was registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against accused persons.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan remarked, “While it is argued that prejudice is caused to the petitioners on account of the infirmity in the procedure, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners have failed to exhibit the prejudice so caused to them. This Court thus finds merit in the argument of the prosecution that once it has been found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, in the absence of any apparent prejudice, the petitioners cannot be allowed to go scot free merely on account of some purported infirmity in procedure.”

The Bench said that merely because the accused persons were subsequently only charged for offences under OSA, no deliberate malice can be attributed to the prosecution that the same was intended to take away the right of the accused persons.

Senior Advocates Manu Sharma and Maninder Singh appeared for the Petitioners, while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam S Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background

A case was registered against the Petitioners-accused on the basis of a DO letter of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It was alleged that the then naval officers in collusion with private persons and unknown persons of a communication company called ‘Atlas’, conspired to unauthorisedly trade off classified documents relating to Ministry of Defence, the disclosure of which allegedly was likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. A complaint was filed and thereafter, an FIR was registered.

An Application under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was also moved by the CBI praying for the stay of the proceedings and the subsequently clubbing of the complaint with the chargesheet, if any, filed. The proceedings were consequently stayed. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) took cognizance and vide Order on charge noted that prima facie sufficient ground existed to proceed against the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the accused persons approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Even if it is assumed that Section 210 of the CrPC ought not to be applicable in the facts of the present case, as discussed in the latter paragraphs, the same has had no adverse impact on the case of the accused persons as the matter was to be committed to the Sessions Court.”

The Court added that since there is no distinction in procedure for trial before the Sessions Court for cases instituted on a police report or complaint, the argument of the Petitioner that the prosecution manipulated the procedure is without any merit.

“Even otherwise, if the case of the petitioners in regard to applicability of procedure in case of warrants trial is taken at the highest, it is relevant to note that Section 245 of the CrPC provides for discharge of an accused if the unrebutted case of the prosecution would not warrant conviction, or if the charge is groundless. On the other hand, Section 227 of the CrPC provides for discharge of an accused if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, and even in case only suspicion as supposed to grave suspicion is made out against the accused”, it noted.

The Court held that the Petitioners failed to make out a case evidencing the failure of justice on account of such procedural infirmity.

“As is rightly said, procedure is the handmaiden of justice and absolving the petitioners at this stage on account of any purported folly in procedure, which did not even prejudice them, would frustrate the ends of justice. Procedure cannot be allowed to become a bottleneck to stifle legitimate prosecutions”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions and refused to interfere with the impugned Orders.

Cause Title- Vinod Kumar Jha v. CBI (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11892)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Manu Sharma, Maninder Singh, Advocates Abhir Datt, Debayan Gangopadhyay, Varnika Singh, Suryaketu Tomar, Dinhar Takiar, Mudit Marwah, Harshita Takiar, Sanjana Nari, Jahnvi Narang, and Karan Tomar.

Respondent: SPP Anupam S Sharma, Advocates Harpreet Kalsi, Vashisht Rao, Vishesh Jain, Riya Sachdeva, and Ripudaman Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment