(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Corruption – Telephone communication – Revision against rejection of discharge application – Sought his discharge on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence – Plea that Section 5 of the Telegraph Act permits interception of telegraph messages only in certain contingencies only, and that too under the orders of the Government. He has submitted that in the present case there was no such order and therefore interception of telephonic conversation between the accused persons was wholly illegal and the telephone conversation recorded in an illegal manner cannot be admitted in evidence in support of the prosecution case.
Held: Whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant. Moreover, the telephonic conversation recorded in the digital voice recorder is not the solitary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and it appears that the prosecution proposes to produces other evidences as well during trial. Plea rejected – Revision dismissed (Para 5, 7, 26, 27)
(B) Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Rule 5, 419 – Evidence – Interception or monitoring of telephone messages – Recording of phone call and producing it as evidence in criminal case – Plea that to intercept a phone call government permission required otherwise it will not be admissible in evidence – Held: The word ‘intercept’ has been defined in Cambridge dictionary as ‘to stop and catch something or someone before that thing or person is able to reach a particular place’. It appears the communication between the two accused persons reached its destination and it was not stopped while it was in the process of reaching the other person, Therefore, from the plane meaning of the word ‘intercept’ it appears that the communication was not ‘intercepted’. No permission required for such. (Para 19, 20)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023 STPL(Web) 106 Allahabad
[Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC-LKO:56067]
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi Vs. State Of U.P.
Criminal Revision No. 935 of 2023-Decided on 23-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-106-Allahabad.pdf
