IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that legal interception of telephonic conversations is permissible under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act for serious offences, and justified the condonation of a 22-day delay in filing a revision petition.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5 and Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 26.02.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati in CBI Case No. RC 01(A)/2019/CBI/ACB/Guwahati, whereby the prayer for recording of voice samples of accused/ respondents was rejected by the learned Special Judge, CBI.

3. In brief, it is the case of the petitioner/CBI that the CBI-ACB, Guwahati Branch has registered a case vide Case No. RC0172019A0001 against Shri Dibyajyoti Dutta (A1), General Manager (Sales) IOC, (AOD), Guwahati; Shri Lalchand Choudhary @ Lalaram (A2); Shri Laxmi Narayan Sogani @ LichuBabu (A3); Shri Tony @ Ankeet (A4); Ms. Bendangnaro Ao (A5); and some other unknown persons under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 (A), 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 based on source information and accordingly the matter was taken up for investigation. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the respondent/ Dibyajyoti Dutta, while working as General Manager (Sales), Indian Oil Corporation (Assam Lil Division), Guwahati during the year 2018-19, has entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, who were officially dealing with him, by abusing his official position and demanded and accepted illegal gratification frequently from private accused persons and other different private businessmen owing Petrol Pump and/or having Kerosene Oil Dealership in connivance with few private firm for showing them official favour in allotment of new Retail Outlets for the places spread all over the Northeast States including the Assam.

4. During investigation, all the 5 (five) numbers of F.I.R. named accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Special Judge, CBI at Guwahati and after expiry of the police remand, all the accused persons were sent to judicial custody. The recording of the conversations held between the accused persons were also collected. The conversations between Dibyajyoti Dutta (A1) and Laxmi Narayan Sogani @ LichuBabu (A3) and conversation between Dibyajyoti Dutta (A1) and Tony @ Ankeet (A4), which were recorded indicates illegal transaction between the accused persons. During the relevant period of time, Tony @ Ankeet (A4) was working as Manager under Laxmi Narayan Sogani @ LichuBabu (A3) in M/S Danmal Sogani & Sons, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati and the recorded conversations of the accused persons and its transcription has already indicated the role of all the accused persons.

5. During investigation, all the accused persons were requested to give their voice sample for the purpose of getting expert opinion on recorded conversation, out of which the respondents-Shri Dibyajyoti Dutta (A1), Shri Laxmi Narayan Sogani (A3) and Shri Ankeet Jain (A4) have refused to provide voice sample for the said purpose which also caused inordinate delay in the investigation of this case.

6. In order to obtain voice sample of the accused persons, an application was already preferred by the CBI before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati as the voice samples were needed for fair investigation. But, on 26.02.2020, the learned Special Judge, CBI had dismissed the application filed by the CBI stating that the CBI failed to test to ascertain that the interceptions of Tele-conversations so made were carried out in legal way as per the provision of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1988 and Rule 419 of Indian Telegraph Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2007.

7. The learned Special Judge, CBI, while dismissing the petition, clearly overlooked the provision of Section 5(5) of the Indi