Interceptions Were Lawful; Transcripts Can’t Be Discarded: Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Destruction Of Intercepted Call Recordings In Corruption Case

The Delhi High Court has refused to order destruction of intercepted call recordings in a corruption case, saying that the interceptions were lawful and transcripts cannot be discarded.

The Court was hearing a Petition challenging the Order of the Special Judge, by which it was found that the charge for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) is made out.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “Having observed that the interceptions were lawful, the same are reliable and admissible. … In the opinion of this Court, the transcripts cannot be discarded and the learned Trial Court rightly perused the same before forming its opinion on whether charges ought to be framed against the petitioner and other accused persons.”

The Bench explained that the admissibility of any piece of evidence rests on its reliability, instead of how that evidence came to be procured and that is not to say that such evidence cannot be disallowed if the evidence is colored by breach of the privacy of the accused, however, even then, the judicial discretion will need to be exercised at the time of stage of adjudication rather than at the time of admitting the evidence on record.

Advocate Vaibhav Dubey appeared for the Petitioner while SPP Ravi Sharma and CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

In 2017, a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the offences under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 9 and 10 of the PC Act. As per the prosecution case, reliable information was received that M/s. Capacite Structures Limited was trying to get a part of the work on sub contract basis from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd., which had been awarded a contract for redevelopment of ITPO Complex into Integrated Exhibition-Cum -Convention Centre at Pragati Maidan, Delhi by M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. (a government enterprise). It was alleged that the source had informed that the accused Sanjay Kulkarni (the Managing Director of Capacite) had approached the accused Rishabh, who was a private person with good contacts with various public servants for securing the said work in favour of his company. It was further alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, the accused Rishabh had contacted the accused Pradeep, working as Asstt. Director in IB (on deputation from BSF), who was close to certain senior functionaries of M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd.

Allegedly, Pradeep had assured that the work could be awarded to Capacite through his close contacts and personal influence with Anoop, CMD of NBCC and Pradeep made a demand for a new Royal Enfield bullet as a part of the illegal gratification. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the demanded motorcycle was to be delivered as part of illegal gratification by the Petitioner, who was an employee of the accused Sanjay, to the accused Pradeep in Delhi. Thereafter, Sanjay had allegedly sent cash to his brother. A CBI trap team along with independent witnesses recovered the motorcycle from Pradeep and the Special Unit, CBI intercepted the calls and 74 recorded conversations established the conspiracy between the accused persons. The Special Judge observed that a prima facie was made out against the accused persons, including the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Although every person has a fundamental right to privacy, the said right is not absolute and it can be curtailed by procedure established by law. The aforesaid provision empowers the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government to legally carry out interception or surveillance in the event of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety.”

The Court remarked that the threat posed by corruption cannot be understated and that the corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation’s economy which can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation.

“Corruption by a public servant has far reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country. The pervasive nature of corruption has been recognised by many Courts and it has been noted that the same undermines the core values of Indian Preambular vision”, it added.

The Court further said that the allegations relate to the accused persons seeking to secure a sub-contract, by way of corruption, from a company that was awarded the task of redevelopment of ITPO Complex into Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre on the basis of personal influence rather than merit of the bid and the allegations are grave in nature which, if proven, would render dubious the entire process of awarding of tenders and bids on the basis of personal influence with senior officers rather than benefit of the public at large.

“Although it cannot be generalized that all allegations in relation to corruption would have the capacity of influencing the public at large, the allegations herein don’t relate to a trivial project but one that was awarded for ₹2149.93 crores where the work sought by way of influence would have been of a substantial sum as well. The economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of “public safety”, it noted.

Furthermore, the Court was of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated that the electronic media corroborates the case of the prosecution by filling the missing gaps as are created by factors like the delivery of motorcycle.

“A bare perusal of the transcripts of the calls show that while the petitioner did mention financial approvals, however, at this stage, some portions of the call suggest that the petitioner was aware of the reason for giving the bike”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that Petitioner was aware of the matter regarding the sub-contract and that the motorcycle was being given to the accused Pradeep, who was the Assistant Director in IB and who was to exercise his influence on higher officials of M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd.

“The Court is in agreement with the observations of the learned Trial Court in this regard. In particular, reference has been made to call no. 34 where co-accused Rishabh is saying that “kaam khatam”, that is, work is done, and that the accused Pradeep had confirmed that black color of bike is fine with him. The said conversation prima facie shows that the petitioner was aware that some work was being done by the accused Pradeep, for which, he was receiving the motorcycle. In call no. 31 between the accused Rishabh and the petitioner, there are even specific mentions to the engagement of the accused Pradeep in IB and the nexus of the accused Pradeep with Mr. Anoop Kumar Mittal, CMD, M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. The nature of the conversation prima facie seems to be suggestive of the fact that the bike is being given as a bribe”, it remarked.

The Court further said that the material on record including the calls cast grave suspicion against the Petitioner which shows that even though he may not be the ultimate beneficiary to the offence, he was participating in the transfer of bribe despite knowing about the nature of the transaction.

“While the guilt of the petitioner would be ascertained in trial, at this stage, the conversations and the statement of the petitioner’s driver cast grave suspicion against him. … It is also pertinent to note that the present case has been pending before this Court since the year 2020 and the trial has since proceeded. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to raise all arguments before the learned Trial Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to interfere with the impugned Order or to order destruction of the intercepted call recordings.

Cause Title- Aakash Deep Chouhan v. CBI & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5019)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Vaibhav Dubey, Kumar Vaibhav, Gautam Khazanchi, and Mohd. Ashaab.

Respondents: SPP Ravi Sharma, CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocates Swapnil Choudhary, Ishaan Bhardwaj, Shivam Mishra, Madhulika Rai Sharma, Kushagra Kansal, and Amit Kumar Rana.

Click here to read/download the Judgment