Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"9) In order to support first application bearing no. M-

67/22 for giving directions to CBI to supply copy of letter By:MAYANK Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:48:33 sent by it to MHA, counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CBI vs. Dharambir Khattar, 2015 SCC online Del 13213......... In the present case in hand, CBI has not claimed any privilege qua the documents through which request was made to MHA to intercept the phone calls of the accused. It is also not denied by CBI that the documents as demanded by the accused are still in possession and control of the CBI and have not been destroyed so far. In reply to this application, when CBI has not claimed any privilege under Section 123 or 124 of Indian Evidence Act, then no question arises to ask it to produce the documents in court for perusal. Only objection of CBI is relating to the existence of details of other numbers of different cases kept for surveillance in that communications sent to MHA. PP on behalf of CBI referred to the order passed in Crl. M. C. 4939/2022 dated 27-9-2022 in case CBI vs. Rakesh Tiwari in which the Hon'ble High Court stayed the order of one Special Judge who had allowed the supply of the copy of request letter sent by the CBI to MHA for permission to keep the mobile phones of the accused on surveillance. However, it is not informed what ultimate order was passed in this case because it was only a stay order passed exparte on first date of hearing.

Accused has a right to question the legality and validity of the interception and recording of his phone calls, which By:MAYANK Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:48:33 also comes within the purview of right to privacy. Such right can be violated by the State or by investigating agency only after following due procedure established under law in Telegraph Act and Rules. The base for obtaining MHA orders were the communications sent by CBI containing request for interception of the phone calls and SMS of accused. It is not justified on the part of the CBI to withheld those communicationsaddressed to MHA especially when no privilege is claimed qua those. The apprehension of the CBI that if copies of such communications are supplied to accused then he may come to know various other details unconnected with this case, can be removed by applying the technique suggested by the High Court in above mentioned CBI vs. DharambirKhattar's case. CBI is hereby directed to supply the copies of request letters/communications sent by it to MHA upon which MHA had passed the orders on 24- 10-2016, 20-12-2016 and 13-2-2017. CBI while supplying the photocopies of original communications shall conceal the source of information, data, phone number, particulars of other persons unconnected with the present accused and other objectionable information etc. by applying permanent marker/white fluid. However, if the court deem it proper, then at the trial stage, can itself see the original if required. With these observations, the first application of the accused bearing no. M-67 /22 is allowed."