Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Shri Padmanaban Kishore vs State Rep By on 27 October, 2017

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED   : 27.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.12404 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

Shri Padmanaban Kishore    				 ..Petitioner
vs.

1.State Rep by,
   Addl. Supdt. of Police,
   SPE:CBI:ACB: Chennai.

2.The Secretary to Govt of India,
   Ministry of Home Affairs,
   New Delhi.			                             ..Respondent


Prayer:-  Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to  set aside the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent for intercepting telephonic message to and from 98410-77377 as illegal and void and direct the trial Court to destroy the intercepted messages/conversations now produced and pending in C.C.No.3 of 2013, as material documents/object on the file of IX Additional District Judge Cum Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
	For Petitioner	 : Mr.V.T.Gopalan for 
			   M/s.S.Sathiaseelan

	For Respondents	 : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
  			   Special Public Prosecutor for CBI  
			   ------	  
			  
 ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.08.2011 regarding intercepting telephonic conversation.

2. The second respondent has taken exception to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, since it questions the validity of the statute namely Indian Telegraphi Act, which is not at all within the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The first respondent has taken a similar plea regarding maintainability of the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach appropriate jurisdictional forum to challenge the provisions of the said Act as well as the conduct of the first respondent pursuant to the said impugned provision.

5. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to question the validity of the provisions of the said Act as well as the subsequent conduct of the first respondent before the appropriate forum, if he is so advised. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


27.10.2017


Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index    : Yes/No
stm/ari
To
The Secretary to Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

stm/ari


















Crl.O.P.No.12404 of 2014






















27.10.2017




Crl.O.P.No.12404 of 2014

Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.

Today the matter is posted under the caption For Being Mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by an order of this Court dated 27.10.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.12404 of 2014, in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, the word has been wrongly typed as first respondent instead of second respondent and therefore it may be corrected and issue fresh order copy.

3. Accordingly, in the order dated 27.10.2017 at paragraph Nos.4 and 5, the word first respondent should be read as second respondent.

4. Office is directed to carry out necessary correction the order dated 27.10.2017 and issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned.

09.11.2017 ari Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.

ari Crl.O.P.No.12404 of 2014 09.11.2017