ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was vitiated due to the absence of a valid and specific authorization from the Central Government under the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act?
Whether the accused, as a former naval officer, was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, thereby requiring prior sanction for prosecution?
Whether the failure to produce the alleged secret documents before the trial court affected the legality of the charges?
RULE:
Authorization for prosecution under special statutes must be explicit and specific.
1. A general reference to “other cognate offences” does not extend authorization beyond what is expressly mentioned.
2. Authorization must be granted after reviewing the actual evidence, not merely on secondary reports or descriptions.
Protection under Section 197 CrPC extends to acts committed in official capacity even after retirement.
1. If the alleged act relates to the accused’s official functions during service, sanction from the Central Government is mandatory before prosecution.
A charge under the Official Secrets Act requires judicial scrutiny of the documents in question.
1. Courts must independently verify whether a document qualifies as an "official secret" or "restricted information."
2. Mere possession of documents does not constitute an offence unless there is intent to use them in a manner prejudicial to national security.