Gujarat HC Reserves Verdict In Journalist Mahesh Langa's Plea For Quashing FIR Alleging Theft Of 'Confidential' Govt Documents

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (February 13) reserved its verdict in plea moved by journalist Mahesh Langa seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him by  Gandhinagar Police for alleged corruption, criminal conspiracy and theft where he is accused of obtaining "highly confidential government documents".

After hearing arguments of the parties Justice Divyesh A Joshi said, “Heard Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal assisted by Learned Advocate A.J. Yagnik for the applicant. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Mitesh Amin assisted by Learned Advocate G.H. Virk. Reserved for orders”.

Appearing for Langa senior advocate Kapil Sibal said, "In respect of some other FIR they (State) raided my house and they found some documents. On the basis of those documents their allegation is that these must have been stolen from Gujarat Maritime Board...and because they must have been stolen at the instance of somebody else (that person we don't know they don't name them). Then they say that those documents must have been entrusted with that person so there is breach of trust. I have no idea about this. Then they say on the basis of this there must have been some conspiracy. So there must be a conspiracy for a man they don't name. There must be a conspiracy for breach of trust. But nobody has entrusted the documents to me. Im not a public servant". 

Arguing that the entire FIR is based a “conjecture” Sibal said, "First they must arrest the person who stole, then they must arrest the person who committed breach of trust, then they must find out prima facie whether there was a conspiracy. My Lords, this is absurd, I mean, I have never seen anything like this…There is absolutely no offence against me at all. And they come arrest me before even they investigate”.

Meanwhile the Additional Advocate General (AAG) Mitesh Amin appearing for the State contended that Langa was apprehended in another case of fraud wherein the police went to his residence and found “confidential and sensitive documents” of Gujarat Maritime Board at the time of search and seized it.

Amin said that thereafter, the investigating officer of that FIR, conveyed to GMB about the documents. Amin said that GMB undertook an inquiry, on the basis of which the conclusion drawn is reflected in the present FIR as first informant is officer of the board. He said that the investigation is at “nascent stage” and Langa is already in custody in a few other matters and the inquiry conducted by the GMB “prima facie” implicates Langa. 

At this stage the court orally said, “I just want to know, this is a highly sensitive information might be lying with the higher carder officer. During the course of investigation, investigating officer concerned has jumped to the conclusion...these original files are been lying in the custody of this officer?”.

The AAG however contended that all the original files are filed from the residence of Langa. The court then asked, "All the original papers?". To this Langa's counsel advocate AJ Yagnik however said that original papers were not with Langa, adding that those were lying with the department and only a copy of the same was with Langa. 

The Court at this point orally asked “So, the original papers are lying in custody of which officer? Name of that particular officer is revealed? FIR is registered on October 22, 2024, so more than...months has been passed. It is very highly sensitive information, as per the statement of the government. So, (the documents) might be lying with the higher rank officers, in the custody of higher rank officers. Statement of that particular officer is recorded or not?”

The AAG then contended that he will place the details of the concerned officer before the court and requested the court to refer to the report at present.

The Court at this point said, “The report, I can understand. On the basis of the initial inquiry report (is filed). This  information should not have been reached to the hands of private persons, despite the same fact, it was found in the custody of the present applicant. Yes, his involvement is found but, how he has collected the said information, from which officer? That statement of the particular fellow is required to be recorded because…the statement of the complainant is required to be recorded and after the recovery of documents one can refer to the complainant that these are the documents lying in the custody. Show me papers pertaining to this. I am concerned with accused no.2 (GMB). Which kind of investigation is to be carried out by the officers concerned in that regard (for accused no.2), that is what I want to know. You just have to supply. Except this report anything against the present applicant?".

"So, present applicant is hand in glove with the other accused persons, try to collect that (evidence),?” the court asked.

The AAG then contended that he is not running away from the query of the court and requested to peruse the papers of investigation placed and submitted that the accused no.2 is bound to be apprehended and would supply the (concerned document) to the Court. Further, the AAG said that without the presence of culprit in GMB and without the help of someone in GMB the offence could not have happened.

The Court then at this point said, “Then the investigation is required to be carried out in that (the supply of documents from GMB to Langa) direction. Unless until, that accused would not be arrested, you would not be in the position.”

The AAG said that the investigation has reached to a level that the accused person will be apprehended "in no time". 

Sibal at this point then argued that the only fact that is stated is that Langa is in possession of the documents, "nothing else". He said that in his explanation Langa had stated he got the documents from Essar. 

"My learned friend is saying now assuming that whoever is given a copy of these documents, that must have been given to me. Where is the basis for that statement?He is now assuming that the possession of the document is a prima facie proof that gentleman of the maritime board must have given those document to me directly. On what basis he is making that assumption. That is the basis of theft," he said.

He further said that Langa had not committed theft or breach of trust and was not involved in any conspiracy. 

"This can't be that they don't arrest that person, but they arrest me. This can't be in law. The only fact that is available here is that 'I'm in possession of these documents. There is nothing else. Therefore the assumption that somebody else stole them and gave them to me (is) not part of any record. He may have given it to a third person or a fourth. No question of any breach of trust as far as I'm concerned. Without arresting those persons how can they arrest me? On what evidence?...It is not fair that to arrest me without arresting the person who they say are guilty," he said. 

He contended that the present case was not a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, therefore the question of highly confidential documents doesn't apply here. If the documents were highly sensitive and highly confidential then the prosecution would have been in the Official Secrets Act, he said.

Sibal said that the FIR doesn't state which law was violated for Langa to have possession of the documents. He said that the documents were in public domain. He said that the State had invoked Prevent of Corruption Act which requires money to be taken and given for which there was no evidence placed on record for theft and breach of trust. He then argued that the State contended that they are still investigating and "so they don't know", therefore, they cannot arrest Langa.

The FIR has been registered under BNS Sections 316(5) (Criminal Breach of Trust by public servants, bankers, merchants and other professionals), 303(2) (Theft), 306 (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) and Sections 7(a)(Undue advantage to influence a public servant), 8 (Bribing a public servant), 12 (Punishment for abatement of offences), 13(1)(a) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), 13(2) (Punishment for a public servant who commits criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Meanwhile the AAG referred to a Supreme Court decision which he said stated that the High Court should be "loath to interfere" with quashing of criminal proceedings in the initial stage under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Case Title: Maheshan Prabhudan Langa vs State of Gujarat & Ors

Case Number: SCr.A/16612 of 2024