A telephone conversation between two accused parties cannot be omitted from evidence due to the fact that it was taken unlawfully, the Allahabad High Court has ruled. [Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Via C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow And Another]
The statement was made by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi as he upheld a trial court’s decision not to release an accused in a bribery case who had been implicated in the case due to a recorded phone conversation.
On the grounds that it was obtained illegally, the accused had contested the admission of the phone conversation. The Court, however, rejected his argument.
The Court stated that the admissibility of the recorded conversation as evidence against the applicant would not depend on whether or not the two accused parties’ telephone communication was legitimately intercepted or not.
The Delhi High Court’s and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s opposing rulings in Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphanender Rayala and Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate of Enforcement, respectively, were declared inadmissible by the court.
In the instance of Sanjay Pandey, the Delhi High Court has ruled that “tapping phone lines or recording calls of individuals without their knowledge is “breach of privacy.”
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had similarly ruled that it was unlawful for a husband to listen in on his wife’s discussion and that such evidence could not be used in court.
However, the Allahabad High Court argued that these rulings disregarded the legal guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (the 2001 Parliamentary attack case).
Justice Vidyarthi continued by noting that the relevance criteria is the only one that matters in terms of whether or not evidence is admissible in India.
According to the court, “The law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the basis that it had been obtained illegally.”
The former CEO of a Cantonment Board, Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi, was accused of corruption, and the bench was dealing with a criminal revision plea trial court judgment rejecting his request for discharge.
Through board member Shashi Mohan, Tripathi is alleged to have demanded a payment of 1.65 lakh rupees.
One of the accused put the phone on speakerphone, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recorded the conversation between the two defendants on a digital voice recorder. The co-accused allegedly informed Tripathi during this exchange that 6% of the total had been paid.
According to the CBI, Tripathi answered “yes,” and when Mohan wanted to continue the call, the former told him not to bring up the subject and asked him to speak with him in the office.
On the grounds that the telephone conversation was not admissible as evidence, Tripathi requested dismissal from this corruption case.
According to his attorney, Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act only allows communication interception in specific circumstances and only when the government has given the order.
The Court stated, however, that in this instance the recorded phone call would not constitute an interception.
“It seems that the message sent from one accused individual to the other was received by him, and it was then captured by a different recording tool called a digital voice recorder. Can it be stated that the communication between the two accused people was “intercepted” in these circumstances? … The Court stated that it appears the message was not “intercepted” based on the word’s simple meaning.
After noting that the phone conversation recording was not the only piece of evidence utilized against the accused, the Court went on to maintain the trial court’s decision and reject the revision application.
Advocate accused Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi was represented by Prateek Tewari.
The CBI was represented by attorney Shiv P Shukla.
Written by Anamika Parasher of Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal ( 5th semester )an intern under Legal Vidhiya
