Bombay High Court


Bombay High Court: In the present case wherein, an FIR was registered by the complainant that during certain proceedings being undertaken in the Police Station, the applicant secretly video recorded the proceedings on his mobile, thereby committing an offence punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, a Division Bench of Manish Pitale and Valmiki SA Menezes, JJ., held that none of the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the applicant.

Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act provides penalties for spying and states that a person will face penalty for spying if he commits an act as specified in sub-section (1) thereof.

The Court noted that the definition of ‘prohibited place’ as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets is exhaustive in nature, which does not specifically include Police Station as one of the places or establishments, which could be included in the definition ‘prohibited place’.

Thus, the Court held that secretly video recording the proceedings inside the police station is not an offence under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

[Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2015, decided on 26-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr.D.R.Bhoyar, counsel for the Applicant;

Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, APP for the Respondent.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.