A criminal trial may proceed even if the admissibility of specific electronic evidence obtained through telephonic interception is under challenge, provided that such evidence is kept in abeyance and not marked or recorded pending the outcome of a higher court's decision.

: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 praying to issue a Wit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and pass such further or other orders in the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in No.SU/CHN/TS(06)/2024-1 by the 2nd respondent read with the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in No.14/3/97-T(2024)/CBI-9 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to destroy all the intercepted messages/transcripts conversations of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders dated 17.09.2024 read with order dated 24.09.2024 in accordance with law and refrain them from using the same in any manner against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arvind Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan

Special Public Prosecutor For CBI Cases

O R D E R

The petitioner/A4 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2025 facing trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for cases under PC Act at Puducherry for offence under Section 61(2) of BNS r/w Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short ‘PC Act’) had filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 17.09.2024 and the order passed by third respondent dated 24.09.2024.

The contention of the petitioner is that M/s.Vijaya Industrial Alcohols Limited/A6 applied for clearance from Puducherry Pollution Control Committee for getting clearance certificate. It is alleged that there was payment of bribe amount and the bribe amount was paid on behalf of petitioner/A4. Further there was some telephonic conversation between the other accused primarily in the Mobile No.96777 14927 of A3 which was intercepted invoking Information Technology Act, 2000 and Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The second respondent ordered interception for 7 days and thereafter third respondent ordered interception for 60 days on 24.09.2024.

The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this Court in W.P.No.143 of 2018 passed an elaborate order considering the validity of interception of telephonic conversation for public emergency or in the interests of public safety and relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (1) SCC 1, held that interception of conversation collected in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules cannot be used for any other purpose whatsoever. Hence, the impugned order is to be quashed and consequently any evidence or materials collected pursuant to the impugned order all to be erased and cannot be relied by the prosecution.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents opposed the contention of the petitioner submitting that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.143 of 2018 was taken up on appeal in W.A.No.2721 of 2025. The Division Bench of this Court in C.M.P.No.21882 of 2025 by order dated 08.09.2025 granted an interim order whereby they observed that the trial pending before the concerned Criminal Court to go on. However, the evidence part which has been collected by the prosecution pursuant to telephonic interception with permission from the authorities concerned under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 cannot be marked or shall not be recorded until further orders. The sum and substance is that the trial Court to proceed, except with regard to the evidence collected invoking Indian Telegraph Act and Information Technology Act, the same to be kept in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the writ appeal. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had taken a different view and confirmed that the interception is permissible when there is information with regard to commission of offence. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek blanket erasement of the electronic evidence.

The specific order passed in W.A.No.2721