Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The trial Court on considering the request and the counter filed by CBI, partly allowed the application directing the CBI to furnish unedited https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.26704 and 26705 of 2022 certified copy of all the intercepted phone conversation in audio form. When this order came to be challenged before this court in Crl.RC.No.1125 of 2015 referred above, this Court has recorded that the entire unedited intercepted phone conversation in audio form was submitted to the trial court with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, along with memo dated 28.09.2017. Recording the same, this Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by CBI with a direction that the copy of the intercepted phone conversation should be taken in the presence of the experts and copies to be furnished to them within a period of 30 days. Before proceeding further, it is to be recorded that CBI was forced to knock the doors of High Court to file revision petition again, since the respondent Padmanabhan Kishore/A2 filed Crl.M.P.No.11152 of 2019 to reject the memo dated 28.09.2017 filed by CBI stating that the order of the High Court in Crl.RC.No.1125 of 2015 dated 01.11.2017 was passed on misrepresentation of the CBI that the telephonic conversation intercepted by the CBI, during the course of investigation produced before the trial court along with affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas no such certificate was filed along with the document.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.26704 and 26705 of 2022

5. The CBI has filed detailed counter stating that along with memo dated 28.09.2017 unedited copy of all the intercepted phone conversation in audio form pertaining to the petitioner in a sealed cover along with receipt memo dated 10.09.2016 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was produced before the Court. Further, the Court while accepting the CD in a sealed cover returned the receipt memo along with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act stating that the certificate under Section 65B is not as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anvar P.V /Vs/ Basheer and others (2014) 10 SCC 473 . Thereafter, on 05.03.2018, as per the instructions of the trial Court, a memo was filed along with copy of the receipt memo dated 10.09.2006 and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and the order of this Court to furnish the unedited conversation been understood as the conversation of the respondent Padmanabhan Kishore same has been furnished to him nearly 742 conversations between the respondent and others in the format of VTM as well as WAD been furnished to the Court before copy of it could be furnished to the accused, to call for records, objection to the memo was filed and order was passed by the trial Court which had led to filing of the revision petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.26704 and 26705 of 2022

8. The prosecution cannot withhold documents, they collected during the course of investigation and cheripick documents which are suitable to them and keep the other documents for the consideration of judicial scrutiny. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.26704 and 26705 of 2022

9. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused/Andasu Ravindar who is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.11152 of 2019 seeking cloned copy of CD contain unedited details of all the intercepted phone conversation in audio form contended that some of the materials collected in the course of investigation been returned to Banu Sekhar who was initially suspected accused, but, now shown in Column 2 of the final report.