JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Prateek Tewari Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the records.

2. This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist challenging the validity of an order dated 25.05.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No.4, Lucknow, whereby the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. praying for discharge of the applicant has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Haider Ali @ Mantu had filed a complaint against one Shashi Mohan, Member, Fatehgarh Cantonment Board, on the basis whereof Case No.RC0062015A0009 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 09.05.2015. The complainant had alleged that Shashi Mohan had demanded Rs.1,56,000/- as bribe on behalf of the applicant Mahant Prasad Tripathi, who was the C.E.O. of Cantonment Board Fatehgarh, for payment of certain bills, at the rate of 6% of the bill amount.

4. The C.B.I. has recorded a telephonic communication between two accused persons on a digital voice recorder, wherein the co-accused told the applicant on phone that ‘Haider had come and he has paid the amount of 6%’, which was acknowledged by the applicant by merely saying ‘yes’ and when the co-accused Shashi Mohan tried to carry the conversation forward, the applicant forbade him to talk on the issue and asked him to talk in the office.

5. The applicant 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 learned trial court has rejected the application.

6. Sri Prateek Tewari Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn attention of the Court towards the provisions contained in Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, which provide as follows: -

“5. Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages.—

(1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government, or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government, may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, take temporary possession (for so long as the public emergency exists or the interest of the public safety requires the taking of such action) of any telegraph established, maintained or worked by any person licensed under this Act.

(2) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order:

Provided that the press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this subsection.”

7. The learned counsel for the revisionist drawn attention of the Court towards Rule 419 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, which provides as follows: -

“419. Interception or monitoring of telephone messages. -It shall be lawful for the Tele