certified copy of all the intercepted phone conversation in audio form. When
this order came to be challenged before this court ... 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
Prosecution Agency to furnish the unedited true certified copy of intercepted phone conversation in audio form while the transcript of the intercepted phone conversation ... passed by the trial court the entire unedited certified copy of intercepted phone conversation in audio form has already been submitted to the trial court
sought permission from
authorities concerned for intercepting petitioner's phone conversations;
that on 17.03.2023 NIA had filed a final report in trial court against ... plain chronology itself,
i.e., NIA seeking permission to intercept petitioner's phone calls on
07.03.2023 immediately after the FB post
care of it. Thereafter, the fourth accused informed the
third accused over phone that he had closed the matter for a disclosure ... public domain. Therefore, the first
respondent passed the order to intercept phone messages of the petitioners
herein.
12. In pursuant to the report submitted
telephone number
the period of interception are clearly given. The telegraph interception,
authorization and permission to intercept the telegraphic conversation are
during the relevant period ... that the interception of phone calls are made after
getting proper and appropriate orders from the concerned. In many number of
cases, the same have
which the
permission was granted by the Home Secretary, allowing interception of
phones of the co-accused, in order to effectively defend the case against
Rule 419-A(1) of the Rules authorizing the interception of
messages from the phone of the petitioner. The impugned order
alleged that interception should ... intercepted in the interest of public safety preventing further
incitement to the commission of an offence.
(ii) Tapping of phones in the instant case
Court could find that, pursuant to the
information collected during the interception of phone calls and source report, case
has been registered
basis of source information
against A1 by interception of the phone calls. They further submitted
that there is no phone call conversation between the petitioners ... after
obtaining necessary permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs,
intercepted the mobile phones of A1, recorded voice of A1 and A2, which
was identified
called one Sudalaimuthu, who, later on, turned to be an approver, over phone and
gave instructions to collect cash from a college representatives and keep ... obtaining permission from the Ministry of
Homes, mobile phones used by all the accused were intercepted and the calls
were tapped and recorded which revealed
