SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Sanjay Pandey - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2409 of 2022 & Crl.M.(Bail) 957 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022




Lawfulness of call recording activities requires consent; absence of dishonest intent under IPC prevents cognizable charges, and no proceeds of crime established under PMLA.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 409, 420 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 69B, 72, 72A - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 5, 20, 21, 24, 26 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Bail application for accused involved in illegal interception of telephonic communication of NSE employees by ISEC Services Pvt. Ltd. between 2009 and 2017. The applicant contended that recording was lawful as it was part of a pre-existing contractual agreement with NSE. Court held that such activities without consent breached privacy rights and were contrary to the Telegraph Act. No conclusive proof of cognizable offences under IPC was established, highlighting absence of dishonest intent essential for charges under sections 420 and 409. The court found that the provisions of the PMLA do not apply as no proceeds of crime were established. The application for bail was granted on the grounds that the applicant demonstrated no likelihood of committing further offences. (Paras 1-86)

Table of Content
1. bail application background and factual context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments against the legality of the fir and call recording. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. prosecution's narrative which defines involvement in crime. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. violation of privacy and regulatory requirements. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. elements of scheduled offences and bail considerations. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
6. legal reasoning regarding applicability of ipc and pmla. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
7. determining nature of relationships and alleged misconduct. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
8. conditions for bail under pmla. (Para 73 , 74 , 75)
9. assessment of likelihood of ongoing criminal activity. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
10. conclusion on bail application. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

1. This is BAIL APPLN. 2409/2022 to enlarge the applicant on regular bail in ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 registered on the basis of FIR bearing RC No. 2212022E0030 registered by CBI/EO-III/Delhi.

2. It has been stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs on 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 sent two communications to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as `CBI') against M/s. ISEC SERVICES PVT. LTD. and Sh. Sanjay Pandey, the applicant herein and:

    (i) Smt. Santosh Pandey;

    (ii) Sh. Anand Narayan;

    (iii) Sh. Armaan Pandey;

    (iv) Sh. Manish Mittal;

    (v) Sh. Naman Chaturvedi;

    (vi) Sh. Ravi Varanasi;

    (vii) Sh. Mahesh Haldipur;

    (viii) Sh. Ravi Narain;

    (ix) Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna;

    (x) Sh. Arun Kumar Singh; and

    (xi) Other unknown persons.

3. It is stated that ISEC SERVICES PVT. LTD. in conspiracy with other accused illegally intercepted MTNL lines at National Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as `NSE') between 2009 to 2017 and recorded calls by various NSE officials. The transcript of these calls was thereafter made available by ISEC to NSE officials. No other phone lines outside NSE are alleged to have been recorded or monitored. It is further stated that the telephone monitoring was carried out by ISEC without taking permission of the competent authority as required under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and also it was without the knowledge and consent of NSE employees. It has further been stated that for the work carried out between 2009 to 2017, ISEC was paid a sum of Rs. 4.54 crores by NSE. The FIR No. RC2212022E0030 dated 07.07.2022 was registered on the allegations levelled by CBI under Sections 120-B read with 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Sections 69B, 72, 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") and Sections 20, 21, 24 & 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ("Telegraph Act") and Sections 3 & 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") at PS - EO-III, CBI, Delhi.

4. Thereupon, the Directorate of Enforcement has registered the ECIR bearing no. ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 on 11.07.2022 allegations of scheduled offences. Pursuant to the FIR, the CBI carried out search in the office premises of ISEC and seized various articles and properties. The CBI also carried out a search of the applicant and seized his mobile phone. The ED arrested applicant on 19.07.2022 and the CBI arrested the applicant on 24.09.2022.

5. The applicant states that in or around 2009, NSE approached ISEC with a request to engage its services for analysis of calls that NSE was recording of its employees. As per ISEC, NSE had been monitoring calls from the landlines installed in its premises since 1997. As per the proposal, NSE was to be provided a hard drive containing pre- recorded call data of its employees and ISEC was required to listen to the data provided by NSE on a weekly basis a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top