Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Rakesh Tiwari on 27 September, 2022
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4939/2022
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anupam S Sharma, SPP,
Mr.Prakash Airan, Ms.Harpreet Kalsi,
Mr.Ripudaman Sharma, Mr.Abhishek
Batra and Mr.Nishant Choudhary,
Advocates.
versus
RAKESH TIWARI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 27.09.2022 CRL.M.A. 19791/2022
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4939/2022, CRL.M.A. 19790/2022
3. This petition is filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 28.04.2022 as well as 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application filed by respondent under Section 91 Cr P C for seeking copy of request letter sent by petitioner to the Ministry of Home Affairs for permission to keeping the mobile phones of accused on surveillance, was allowed.
4. The learned Trial Court relied upon the decision in Dharambir Khattar vs CBI 148 (2008) DLT 289, and whereas the learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the decision in CBI vs Om Arora and Others Crl.M.C.No.787/2014 decided on 02.06.2016 wherein following was held:-
9. It is the consistent stand of the CBI that the communications made by them to the Ministry of Home Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2022 14:07 Affairs regarding surveillance of the phone of the respondents cannot be made available to the respondents for the reasons that it contained the information not only about the respondents only but several other suspects also and in case the said communication is made available, it would be against the public interest. It is also the case of the CBI that if such communication is made available, it would lead to hampering the investigation done against several other suspects. Such documents are highly sensitive in nature and are of utmost secrecy.
10. Special procedural advantages and protections are enjoyed by the State. One of such protections operates in the field of evidence is in the nature of a privilege regarding the production of certain documents and disclosure of certain communications, which is enumerated in Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Under the said Sections, CBI in the present case and such government agencies enjoy certain privileges from production of certain documents and disclosure of certain communications before the courts.
11. In the present case, the documents/letters /communications demanded by the respondents are unpublished official record relating to various suspects including the respondents-herein. Therefore, it would not be safe to supply such documents which would either hamper the investigation of other cases to be conducted by CBI or which are against the public interest. In the considered view of this Court, the CBI cannot be directed to supply the request letter/communication sent by it seeking approval granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 08.09.2010.
5. In the circumstances, issue notice to respondent through all modes returnable on 19.12.2022 and in the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed. Order dasti.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 M Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:28.09.2022 14:07