Illegally Obtained Evidence Is Admissible If Relevant: Delhi High Court Upholds Charges and Validates Call Interceptions in ₹2149 Crore Tender Bribery Case

"Even If Interceptions Were Illegal (Which They Were Not), the Recordings Are Admissible If Relevant":  In a landmark decision Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by petitioner Aakash Deep Chouhan, who sought quashing of corruption charges and destruction of allegedly unlawfully intercepted call recordings. The case revolved around a criminal conspiracy to deliver a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle as illegal gratification in connection with the ₹2149.93 crore redevelopment project at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held: “Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation’s economy… threatening the economic safety of the country,”
thus justifying interception of telephonic conversations under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in the interest of public safety. The judgment reiterates the Court’s role in preventing the misuse of legal process to shield corruption under the garb of privacy.

“Delivery of Motorcycle Was Not Innocuous — Petitioner Knew the Nature of the Transaction”: Prima Facie Case Made Out under Section 120B IPC and Section 9 PC Act

The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the CBI on December 22, 2017, against officials and private individuals alleged to have conspired to secure a subcontract from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the ₹2149.93 crore ITPO redevelopment project, awarded by NBCC (India) Ltd., a government PSU.

As per the CBI’s case, Sanjay Kulkarni (MD, M/s Capacite Structures Ltd.) sought help from Rishabh Aggarwal, who in turn contacted Pradeep Kumar Mishra, a public servant in the Intelligence Bureau. Pradeep allegedly demanded a Royal Enfield Bullet as a bribe to influence NBCC’s top brass, specifically its CMD, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mittal.

The petitioner Aakash Deep Chouhan, an employee of Sanjay Kulkarni, was accused of facilitating this bribe by purchasing and delivering the motorcycle to Pradeep.

The CBI intercepted 74 calls across five mobile numbers, including that of the petitioner, and these conversations allegedly revealed the entire conspiracy.

Court on Legality of Interceptions: “Economic Offences of This Nature Satisfy the Threshold of Public Safety”

The petitioner argued that the call interceptions violated the fundamental right to privacy and the procedure prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules. The defence cited the celebrated K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India decision on privacy and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, urging that unless there was a public emergency or danger to public safety, such surveillance was illegal.

The Court, however, firmly rejected this contention, stating:

“The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated… it renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country.”

Justice Mahajan emphasized that corruption, especially in high-value public infrastructure contracts, is not a victimless crime and directly affects public interest:

“Although it cannot be generalized that all allegations of corruption would impact public safety, the allegations herein don’t relate to a trivial project… but one that was awarded for ₹2149.93 crores.”

The Court observed that the Review Committee, constituted under Rule 419A, had in fact reviewed and validated the interception orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, with meetings held on January 11, 2018 and March 23, 2018. Therefore, it held:

“No case is made out for destruction of the transcripts. The interception was carried out in accordance with law.”

“Relevance Governs Admissibility, Not Manner of Collection”: Intercepted Calls Admissible Even if Unlawful

Anticipating the argument of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, the Court clarified:

“Even if the case of the petitioner is taken at the highest... the destruction of the recordings is not warranted as they are clearly relevant.”

Justice Mahajan relied on binding precedent from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu and R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra to underscore that:

“There is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible… if it is relevant.”

Quoting Navjot Sandhu, the Court reiterated: “The non-compliance or inadequate compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act does not per se affect the admissibility... A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact.”

Thus, the intercepted calls, which allegedly revealed discussions around bribes, delivery schedules, and influence peddling, were held admissible and reliable.

“Grave Suspicion Exists — Not a Case of Innocent Employee Following Orders”

The petitioner claimed he was merely executing employer instructions and unaware of any illegal arrangement. However, the Court, after examining transcripts of Call Nos. 31, 33, 34, 41, and 44, found otherwise.

In particular, in Call No. 34, the co-accused Rishabh allegedly tells the petitioner that “kaam khatam” (work is done), referring to Pradeep’s confirmation that a black motorcycle is acceptable. This, the Court held, “prima facie shows that the petitioner was aware that some work was being done by accused Pradeep, for which he was receiving the motorcycle.”

Further, the petitioner’s own driver testified that on December 22, 2017, he drove the petitioner to deliver the motorcycle to Pradeep — supporting the CBI’s version.

The Court observed: “Even though he may not be the ultimate beneficiary, he was participating in the transfer of bribe despite knowing about the nature of the transaction.”

Referring to Sajjan Kumar v. CBI and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Justice Mahajan emphasized that at the stage of framing charges:

“If the material suggests that the accused might have committed the offence, the Court can frame charges… even if conviction is not certain.”

The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the Special Judge’s order framing charges. It held:

“There is adequate prima facie material to suggest the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy. The learned Trial Court rightly found grave suspicion… The petition is dismissed.”

This judgment affirms a critical position: in cases of economic offences, particularly those involving public institutions and large-scale contracts, public safety and economic integrity justify lawful surveillance, and relevant evidence will not be discarded merely due to technicalities — especially where corruption threatens the very fabric of governance.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2025