Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. The RC was registered by the CBI in the Lift Case on 3 rd April 2003 on the basis of „source information.‟ The charge sheet was filed on 15th July 2004 along with the documents. A question arose whether the accused would be entitled to be supplied the copies of the call intercepts on the hard discs of the computers in the CBI‟s office. This issue came to be decided by a judgment dated 11th March 2008 passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1775 of 2006 [Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation 148 (2008) DLT 289] directing supply of the copies of the call records and playing of the original recording from the hard discs. A time schedule was also set down in the said judgment for the completion of the arguments and orders on charge. The learned Special Judge has pronounced the impugned orders on charge within the time schedule stipulated by this Court. This Court has already held the revision petitions not to be maintainable and is proceeding to consider the arguments on merits hereafter. Submissions on merits on behalf of the petitioners

The FIRs were registered at three different branches of the CBI. The question posed was if the branches of the CBI are a police station, then there is no explanation why four cases have been registered at 4 police stations when the offence in fact emanates under the territorial jurisdiction of the police station under which the DDA office falls. (2) The last of the FIRs was registered on 29 th April 2003. In the Shameet Mukerjee case, the hard disc was required to be sealed immediately following the procedure outlined in the CBI Manual as the evidence would otherwise become suspect. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Chandra Kant Ratilal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra 1993 CrlJ 2863 (Bom). The hard disc was sealed only on 7 th June 2003 whereas the sample voice of the petitioner was taken in April 2003. Therefore, it is possible that the voice attributed to the petitioner "may have been planted/fed from the sample voice available." The Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL) did not give any certificate that the hard disc was undoctored and unedited or not tampered.

(e) There was no telephonic conversation between Subhash Sharma and Pradeep Kapur and also no transcript of the same. The petitioners are alleged to have telephoned R.S. Yadav, Junior Engineer of the DDA to take the telephone number of Subhash Sharma and that is on 27 th February 2003. This itself shows that they could not have been in conspiracy with Subhash Sharma. The manner of recording of the telephonic conversation and non-supply of the hard disc on which they were copied are secondary evidence and not admissible under Section 65B Evidence Act. Further there were discrepancies in the duration of the calls shown in the transcript submitted by the telephone companies.