Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4076
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
SHYAMALENDU KUMAR DAS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
WP/3389/2024
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Mr. Saurish Shetye, Mr. Pavan Kumar Pandey, Mr. Pravin Pandey, Ms. Sneha Mishra i/b Mr. Prem Kumar Pandey, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil with Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, for the CBI.
The court affirmed that interception under the Indian Telegraph Act requires a demonstration of public safety or emergency, and succinct reasons can suffice if they indicate necessity.
Headnote:
Telecommunications - Interception of Messages - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 5(2) - The court upheld the interception orders, emphasizing the necessity of public safety and emergency, while interpreting the requirement for recording reasons in writing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act, which authorized monitoring of his phone due to alleged corrupt activities. The CBI acted on source information leading to an FIR against him for corruption and conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interception orders met the statutory requirements of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, as they were justified by the necessity for public safety and the urgency of the situation.
Issues: Whether the interception orders were valid under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, considering the requirements of public safety and the necessity for recording reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of public safety and emergency justified the interception, and the reasons provided, while succinct, were adequate under the statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the interception orders was dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. A. THE CHALLENGE
2) Petition raises challenge to Orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1998 directing interception of telephonic messages to and from Petitioner’s mobile phones numbers and disclosure thereof to Director, CBI. B. FACTS
3) Narration of few basic facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. Petitioner came to be appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) in the year 1987. In 2017, he was posted as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand. By order dated 9 October 2017, he was transferred to Mumbai where he joined on 11 October 2017 and started functioning as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). While working in Mumbai, the Petitioner had procured two mobile phone numbers, viz. 8218574304 and 9968004524. On 9 March 2018, first Respondent passed order authorising interception of any message from and to the mobile phone bearing No. 8218574304 relating to clandestine contact/movement/activity etc. The order was passed in exercise of powers by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act). On 17 March 2018, similar order was passed in respect of Petitioner’s other mobile number i.e. 9968004524. It appears that in pursuance of the orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018, certain messages of Petitioner were intercepted by the first Respondent and provided to CBI, based on which FIR bearing No. RC/BA1/2018/A0011 was registered against Petitioner and other officials working under him under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged in the FIR that a reliable source information was received that Petitioner was indulging in corrupt and illegal activities and criminal conspiracy with other persons and staff working in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and seeking illegal gratification for official acts/functions like processing of renewal/issuance of labour licenses, certificate of registration, building and other works, construction work certificates and deciding on inspection matters etc. The FIR alleges that the source information revealed that M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd had undertaken project in Colaba, Mumbai and two personnel of the said Company were in regular touch of the Petitioner relating to the work of renewal/issuance of licenses and other pending works in the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. The FIR alleges that Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,20,000/- in three packets of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for himself and two other public servants. The FIR was registered after learning that the Company person was likely to deliver illegal gratification to the Petitioner and other two public servants. CBI alleges that a trap was conducted on 20 April 2018 in which the bribe amount was recovered from Petitioner and the bribe amounts of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were recovered from Petitioner’s cabin and the third bag of bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the backpack of another public servant. CBI also alleges recovery of license issued after delivery of bribe amount from the backpack of Shri. Pradeep Vishwakarma, employee of Som Projects Pvt. Ltd.
4) Petitioner was arrested on 20 April 2018 and was also placed under deemed suspension. He was released on bail on 2 May 2018. After completion of investigations, chargesheet has been filed against Petitioner, Smt. Jagriti Gupta-Labour Enforcement Officer (Accused No.2), Mukul Garg (Accused No.3), Ashish Aggarwal (Accused No.4) and Pra
