Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32.Now the authenticity and the admissibility of the aforementioned conversations in question, is being questioned on behalf of the defence mainly on two grounds: firstly that the hard disk of the original computer system from which the intercepted calls were copied in CDs (that have been exhibited and heard during trial) was not seized during investigation and secondly that the intercepted phones have not been shown to be subscribed in the names of the accused persons and that therefore it cannot be held that the conversations proved on record were made by the accused persons only. I am afraid that the said contentions of the defence have no merits whatsoever, for in terms of the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which makes computer generated evidence admissible, the prosecution was not required to seize the hard disk of the State Vs. Abdul Latif and Ors.

33.PW13 Inspector Attar Singh in his deposition has inter alia stated that during the investigation of case FIR No. 33/08, he had been monitoring the interception of the mobile phones in question and that on 01.09.2008 on the request of ASI Rakesh, he had prepared a folder of 26 intercepted calls pertaining to the mobile numbers in question. He has further deposed that the computer system installed in the office of Special Cell/NR is password protected and is under his control and supervision and that no unauthorized person can access the system or make any deletion, alteration or addition in the intercepted calls and further that during the relevant period of interception, the computer system was working properly without any breakdown and that he had downloaded 26 intercepted calls in the CD Ex.P8. PW14 SI Rakesh Kumar has inter alia deposed that the CD Ex.P8 was handed over to him by Inspector Attar Singh on 06.09.2008 and that he had selected the relevant calls therefrom State Vs. Abdul Latif and Ors.

per the usual practice, the investigating official would have wanted this accused to speak at the time of recording his voice sample.

39.In view of the discussion hereinabove, this court finds no reason to doubt the recovery of the mobile phones from the accused persons or the fact that the intercepted mobile conversations were made by the accused persons only.

40.At this stage it will also be relevant to consider the charges framed against the accused Abdul Latif u/s 420/471 IPC for having obtained the subscription of the two mobiles recovered from him on the basis of fake documents. The customer application forms of the two mobile numbers proved on record show that the said numbers were subscribed in the name of Egbonwon Akinjide r/o WZ­124/5, Gali no.12, Krishnapuri, Tilak Nagar and Latif Ayudele r/o E/P 14, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri. As per the deposition of the investigating officials PW14 ASI Rakesh Kumar both the aforementioned addresses were found to be fake and fictitious. Though it has been rightly contended by Ld. Defence counsel Sh. A.K. Sahoo that since no employee of Bharti Airtel has stepped into the witness box to state that it was the accused Abdul Latif who had cheated them by procuring the said two numbers on the basis of fake and fictitious documents, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, in the considered opinion of this court, State Vs. Abdul Latif and Ors.