Recorded Telephonic Conversation Whether Obtained Illegally Or Not Would Not Affect Its Admissibility As Evidence: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has held that recorded telephonic conversation whether obtained illegally or not would not affect its admissibility as evidence.
The Court said this while dealing with a revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist challenging the validity of an order passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court whereby the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. praying for discharge of the applicant was rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted, “The law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the ground that it had been obtained illegally. … Therefore, 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.”
The Bench held that no such material or ground is present from which it may form a definite opinion that there no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant.
Advocate Prateek Tewari appeared on behalf of the revisionist while Advocate Shiv P. Shukla appeared on behalf of the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
Facts of the Case -
A man had filed a complaint against the Member, Fatehgarh Cantonment Board, on the basis whereof a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by the CBI. The complainant had alleged that the said member had demanded Rs. 1,56,000/- as bribe on behalf of the revisionist, who was the C.E.O. of Cantonment Board Fatehgarh, for payment of certain bills, at the rate of 6% of the bill amount.
The CBI recorded a telephonic communication between two accused persons on a digital voice recorder, wherein the co-accused told the revisionist on phone that ‘Haider had come and he has paid the amount of 6%’, which was acknowledged by the revisionist by merely saying ‘yes’ and when the co-accused tried to carry the conversation forward, the revisionist forbade him to talk on the issue and asked him to talk in the office. The revisionist had sought his discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence, but the trial court rejected his application.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “… 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.”
The Court, therefore, did not find any illegality in the order rejecting the discharge application filed by the revisionist.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision.
Cause Title- Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow and Another (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:56067)
