Recorded Telephonic Conversation Between Accused Persons Admissible As Evidence Even If Obtained Illegally: Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while rejecting a revision plea filed challenging the order of a trial court refusing to discharge an accused (Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi) in a case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Essentially, the prosecuting agency (C.B.I.) had recorded the alleged telephonic communication between two accused persons on a digital voice recorder, wherein the co-accused told the applicant on the phone that ‘Haider had come and he has paid the amount of 6%’, which was acknowledged by the applicant merely saying ‘yes’.

The applicant sought his discharge under Section 227 of CrPC on the ground that the alleged telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence as it was obtained illegally by the CBI.

However, the trial court rejected his application, challenging which, he moved the HC wherein his counsel argued that Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act permits interception of communication only in certain contingencies, and that too under the orders of the government and in the instant case, no such orders were obtained.

Having noted the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset noted that since the alleged conversation was allegedly recorded on another device called a digital voice recorder, and such recording can’t be called to have been intercepted.

“…it appears the communication between the two accused persons reached its destination and it was not stopped while it was in the process of reaching the other person, before reaching the other person. Therefore, from the plain meaning of the word ‘intercept’ it appears that the communication was not intercepted.”

However, since elaborate submissions were made by the Counsel for the revisionist on the issue of the admissibility of the recorded conversation obtained illegally, the Court proceeded to examine the issue.

In its analysis, the Court found that the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate Of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs Nagaphanender Rayala could not be relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist as these verdicts had not taken into consideration Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu.

“The law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the ground that it had been obtained illegally…Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant,” the Court noted.

Further, the Court also noted that the telephonic conversation recorded in the digital voice recorder was not the solitary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and that the prosecution proposed to produce other evidence as well during the trial.

In view of this, upholding the trial court’s order, the Court rejected the revision plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Prateek Tewari

Counsel for Opposite Party: Shiv P. Shukla

Case title - Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 935 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Click Here To Read/Download Order