Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
Kolnati Linga Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge against lower court's order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against admissibility based on privacy and authorization. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's view on the admissibility of recorded calls as evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. distinction between tapping of phone and lawful recording. (Para 10) |
| 5. final dismissal of the criminal petition. (Para 11) |
O R D E R :
The petitioner is challenging the orders passed in Crl.MP.No.1730 of 2024 in CC.No.2371 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.
2. The petitioner has filed CC.No.2371 of 2021 against the 2nd respondent for the alleged offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The 2nd respondent has cross-examined the petitioner and also filed Crl.MP.No.1730 of 2024 seeking to bring on record the pendrive along with a certificate under Section 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act .
3. The learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the 2nd respondent and permitted the 2nd respondent to submit the pendrive containing the call records between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the petitioner and one third party. The petition was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2024.
4. The le
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
