LI Network
Published on: 02 September 2023 at 13:02 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a telephone conversation between two accused individuals cannot be excluded from evidence based on its illegal acquisition.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi upheld a trial court’s decision in a bribery case, where an accused was implicated through a recorded phone conversation.
The accused challenged the admissibility of the conversation due to its illegal acquisition, but the Court dismissed the plea.
The Court stated that the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the accused would not be affected by whether the telephonic conversation was intercepted or obtained legally.
The Court noted that contrary judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court could not be relied upon and pointed out that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu established the only applicable test for the admissibility of evidence in India – the test of relevance.
Justice Vidyarthi emphasized that evidence cannot be refused admission on the grounds of its illegal acquisition. The Court was addressing a criminal revision plea in a trial court order that rejected a discharge application by Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi, a former CEO of a Cantonment Board, who was accused of corruption.
In the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had recorded a telephonic conversation between the two accused individuals on a digital voice recorder, with one of the accused using the phone’s speakerphone function.
The CBI claimed that during the conversation, the co-accused informed Tripathi about the payment of a portion of the bribe amount. Tripathi responded affirmatively, and when the conversation turned towards further details, he asked to discuss it in person at the office.
Tripathi sought discharge from the corruption case, arguing that the recorded telephonic conversation was not admissible as evidence due to its illegal acquisition.
His counsel referred to Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which permits the interception of communication only under specific conditions and with government orders.
However, the Court found that the recorded phone conversation did not amount to interception, as it was not captured while being transmitted but rather recorded after reaching one of the accused’s devices.
The Court emphasized that the term ‘intercept’ suggests that the communication was not interrupted.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision application, noting that the recorded conversation was not the sole evidence against the accused in the case.