THAT Official Secrets Act cases drag on for years and often end up in acquittals is widely known, but who is now being blamed for it? The CBI for a directive, which the Delhi Police claims, is ‘‘creating impediments’’ and having an ‘‘adverse impact’’ on OSA trials.
This, the letter explains, is because the notification empowers Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to try OSA cases while the 1923 OSA Act stipulates that a First Class Magistrate try these cases.
The letter states, ‘‘The notification has created impediments and problems in (the) otherwise smooth trials of OSA cases,’’ and adds: ‘‘OSA cases are of national importance involving national security, integrity and soverignity of India with international ramifications. These convicts deserve to be awarded maximum penalty of up to 14 years.’’
Besides the quantum of punishment, Delhi Police has now pointed out, trying these cases in the CMM’s court makes the convicts eligible for bail if the chargesheet has not been filed within after 60 days of commencement of the trial.
Delhi Police sources say the urgency of the appeal could be linked by the bail granted by HC judge R.S. Sodhi to OSA accused D.S. Chandrawat on January 17 on grounds that the chargesheet had not been filed within 60 days. Chandrawat, an employee of the Department of Cryptography Department in the Ministry of Defence was caught while despatching top secret documents to Nepal. The Delhi Police has decided to file an appeal in the SC against the grant of bail.
To strengthen its case for withdrawal of the notification, the MHA has been given a list of cases where judges had awarded either 14 years’ or 10 years’ punishment. The list, for instance, includes an OSA case registered against the Larkins brothers, who were arrested in 1983. In the same letter, the Delhi Police has complained about how OSA cases have been getting ‘‘accumulated’’ in the CMM’s court since the judge is unable to give individual time to the cases. The DCP’s letter states, ‘‘Many summoned witnesses go unexamined.’’ The letter concludes, ‘‘The notification has, in fact, increased one more channel of appeal for the accused persons…it’s now requested that the MHA may once again revoke the above notification for speedy trials.’’
