Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1089

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Prateek Tewari.
For the Opposite Party : Shiv P. Shukla.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the admissibility of telephonic conversations recorded under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419-A, and whether such evidence can dispose discharge applications under Section 227 Cr.P.C.?

What are the requirements and safeguards for interception orders under Section 5(2) and the PUCL guidelines, and their impact on privacy and evidentiary use?

How does the court assess discharge versus framing of charges in a revision, and whether illegally obtained or imperfectly intercepted evidence can affect admissibility or proceeding?

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-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(All) 1089

SUBHASH VIDYARTHIMahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow – Respondent

What is the admissibility of telephonic conversations recorded under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419-A, and whether such evidence can dispose discharge applications under Section 227 Cr.P.C.?

What are the requirements and safeguards for interception orders under Section 5(2) and the PUCL guidelines, and their impact on privacy and evidentiary use?

How does the court assess discharge versus framing of charges in a revision, and whether illegally obtained or imperfectly intercepted evidence can affect admissibility or proceeding?

Cases Referred (6)

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow – Respondent