"Court Upholds Rejection of Discharge Application, Says 'Admissibility of Telephonic Conversation Not Affected by How It Was Obtained'"

In a significant ruling yesterday, Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The case involved allegations of corruption and the admissibility of intercepted telephonic conversations as evidence.

The Court observed, "The admissibility of the telephonic conversation is not affected by how it was obtained," citing various Supreme Court judgments. [Para 25-26]

The revisionist, Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi, was accused of demanding a bribe. The Central Bureau of Investigation had recorded a telephonic conversation between the accused persons as evidence. The revisionist argued that the conversation was not admissible under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Rule 419 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

The Court referred to several cases, including People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India and another, Sanjay Pandey versus Directorate of Enforcement, and Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari Versus Nagaphanender Rayala, among others, to arrive at its decision.

The Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it, thereby upholding the original order that rejected the discharge application. [Para 29-30]

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving the admissibility of intercepted telephonic conversations, especially in corruption cases. It reiterates the importance of Supreme Court judgments in determining the admissibility of such evidence.

Date of Decision- 23.8.2023

Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs  State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I.