The Delhi High Court has given the green light to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to record the testimony of C Edmonds Allen, a 79-year-old American businessman, through videoconferencing. The testimony will be recorded from the Indian Consulate in New York as part of the ongoing investigation into a 2012 Official Secrets Act (OSA) case linked to arms dealer Abhishek Verma.
Justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the verdict while addressing the CBI’s appeal against a trial court’s order from April 6, 2023. The trial court had initially denied the CBI’s request to examine Allen as a prosecution witness via videoconferencing, citing concerns that sharing classified documents could violate secrecy provisions and lead to unauthorized disclosure.
The case dates back to August 2012 when Verma and his associate, Anca Maria Neacsu, were booked by the CBI. They were accused of possessing classified defence ministry documents, including sensitive information related to the Indian Air Force’s acquisition plans and minutes from Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) meetings. This action followed a letter sent by Allen to the then defence minister on June 6, 2012, which contained classified information and documents pertaining to Indian defence matters. Allen had reportedly received these documents from Verma.
In its appeal to the High Court, the CBI argued that Allen was a crucial witness and that the OSA does not prohibit the recording of evidence through videoconferencing, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to preserve secrecy through in-camera proceedings and controlled handling protocols. The agency also highlighted that Allen, being a senior citizen with significant health issues, would find videoconferencing to be the most viable method for providing his testimony.
Abhishek Verma’s lawyer, Maninder Singh, contested the CBI’s petition, arguing that it was flawed and based on misrepresentations of facts. He contended that Allen, who was a director and shareholder of M/s Ganton India Private Limited, a company established by Verma and Neacsu in the US, was actively involved in the company’s operations, suggesting he should have been an accused rather than a witness.
Overturning the trial court’s decision, Justice Narula, in a detailed 12-page verdict, stated that electronic recording of evidence is permissible under the OSA, as long as adequate safeguards are implemented. The court directed that the proceedings be conducted in-camera. The judge acknowledged the trial court’s apprehension regarding potential leaks of classified material but emphasized that the solution lies in regulation and proper safeguards, not outright prohibition. The verdict clarified that the OSA outlines the procedures for sensitive proceedings, and Section 14 of the Act, read with Section 327 of the CrPC, empowers the court to conduct proceedings privately and maintain secrecy. The court concluded that the appropriate judicial approach is to manage risks effectively while upholding the integrity of the legal process.