'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court

Official Secrets Act Doesn't Prohibit Police Station Videotaping- Bombay HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Police stations are not particularly mentioned as one of the places or businesses that fall under the definition of a banned place in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act, according to the Bombay High Court.

The motion filed seeking the quashing of FIR pending before the Competent Court in response to filing of charge-sheet in the matter was being handled by the justices Manish Pitale and Valmiki SA Menezes.

In this instance, the complainant is a police officer who claims that while some hearings were taking place in the police station, the applicant secretly videotaped the proceedings on his mobile, breaking the Official Secrets Act of 1923 and committing an offence.

An offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923 has been levelled against the petitioner.

The High Court noted that the Official Secrets Act's definition of a "prohibited place" in section 2(8) is pertinent. It is a thorough definition, however it does not clearly list the police station as one of the locations or businesses that can fall under the category of "prohibited place." The applicant does not meet any of the requirements for the alleged offence. The bench concluded that the applicant does not meet any of the requirements for the claimed offence. As a result, this would be a suitable situation to approve the application.

Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay

vs

State of Maharashtra

Download Order

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News