Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. An Additional statement was made by A-1 on 11th July 2013 wherein he stated that no mobile phone was recovered from him and that he had nothing to do with the conversations of the intercepted mobile phones copied from the hard disc of the computer to a pen drive which was handed over to PW-17. He denied that the conversations recorded on the CDs and DVD between him and the other co-accused persons were in his voice.

41. Mr. Gautam submitted that inasmuch as the case property was taken to the office and not deposited at the nearest PS, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the police. Reliance is placed on the decision in Inder Dev Yadav v. The State 2014 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 129. There was no evidence to prove that A-2 was a member of the KZF. The mobile phone seized from A-2, i.e., 9821060613 was not in his name. It was not shown to him either.

42. Mr. Anurag Jain, learned counsel appearing for A-3, submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case. The mobile conversations which allegedly took place between the accused persons were false, and concocted. There was no explanation as to why the said mobile conversations were not part of the original charge sheet. The alleged information that A-3 was using from the mobile No.9876933745 for contacting KLF was not part of the original charge sheet. There was no evidence to show that any of the mobile phones pertained to A-3 or how the phones were intercepted. The technology used in the system was capable of being manipulated. The procedure for interception was full of loopholes and Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been complied with. The report of Dr. Rajender Singh (PW-28) regarding matching of the voice samples of A-3 on the taped conversations with the sample voice was „doubtful‟ and has not been proved in accordance with law.

56. Turing to the facts in the present case, there is a whole chain of events that has taken prior to the interception orders of the mobile phones. The interception orders were in respect of the mobile phones (Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C). PW-1 stated that after the after the bomb blasts that took place in 2005 at Liberty and Satyam Cinemas the mobile phones of the suspects were kept under surveillance. PW-1 had been deputed to listen to those conversations. He came across the mobile used by A-3. He learnt that A-3 was in constant touch with Daya Singh Loharia, a Member of KLF. An FIR No.77 of 2007 was got registered in PS Special Cell. A-3 was arrested in the said FIR on 26th February 2008. There was a specific instruction from senior officers that the surveillance of the mobile phones had to be kept secret. In that process PW-1 learnt that A-3 was involved in the racket of supplying of fake currency, drugs, arms and ammunitions and he used to supply drugs to A-1 and A-2. PW-1 revealed some facts to PW-16 by keeping his operation to be secret.

57. PW-1 stated that he was given permission only on 2nd April 2008 to hand over the intercepted phone conversations transcriptions in a pen drive to SI Upender Solanki (PW-17). The conversations between the accused persons were intercepted and provided to the office of the Special Cell. This was spoken to by PW-1, PW-17 and PW-30. PW-17 explained that after hearing the conversations of all the calls, he copied all of them in DVD and CDs (Ex.P-29, P-36 and P-38). The computer system installed in the Special Cell was under the supervision and control of PW- 30 and the password of the same remained with him. It was stated that during the relevant period there was no problem in the operation of the computer system while recoding the calls nor was there any break down.