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 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Cbi Represented By vs Shri Padmanabhan Kishore on 1 November, 2017

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.11.2017
CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2015


CBI represented by
Additional Superintendent of 
Police, SPE:CBI:ACB:Chennai.	  .. Petitioner/Complainant

Versus 

Shri Padmanabhan Kishore
M/s. Everonn Education Limited.,
Perungudi, Chennai.		    .. Respondent/Accused 

	Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 r/w 397 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 22.07.2015, in Criminal M.P.No.232 of 2015, in CC No.3 of 2013 passed by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 
	
	       For Appellant	.. Mr.K.Srinivasan				             		   Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases

	       For Respondent.. Mr.Abudhu Kumar Rajarathinam for 
			      Mr.K.Sathiaseelan.
				-------	

ORDER	

This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the trial court directing the Prosecution Agency to furnish the unedited true certified copy of intercepted phone conversation in audio form while the transcript of the intercepted phone conversation has already been furnished to the respondent/accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused is that the transcript does not consist of the entire phone conversation found in the audio record, but it is only a selective portion of the phone conversation. Hence the entire unedited conversation found in the audio record has to be furnished to the accused.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the order passed by the trial court the entire unedited certified copy of intercepted phone conversation in audio form has already been submitted to the trial court with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, along with memo on 28.9.2017.

4. Having furnished the entire unedited intercepted phone conversation in audio form before the trial court, nothing survives in the Revision Petition.

5. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the trial court shall take copies of the intercepted phone conversation in audio form furnished by the Prosecution along with memo dated 28.9.2017, with the assistance of the experts in the presence of the counsels appearing for the Prosecution as well as the accused and furnish copy of the same to the persons concern within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Index:Yes/No					01.11.2017
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
gr.



Copy to:-
1.The   IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 
2.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, High Court, Madras.





















G.JAYACHANDRAN, J



gr.















Cril.R.C.No.1125 of 2015

















01.11.2017