Advertisement

Decision of the Review Committee Be Summoned Being Post Facto Decision, If It Is Agreed By The Concerned Authority

In a bribery case based upon Intercepted Conversations, an application U/s 91 Cr.P.C was preferred on behalf of accused Sudhir Kumar Jain (Ex-CMD Syndicate Bank) by his Counsel Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate.

In an Order passed by Sh. N.K. Laka, Special Judge, CBI, RADC, Ld. Trial Court opined that the Competent Authorities i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India need to check the correctness of the order passed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act by the Review Committee, while permitting telephonic interception is a relevant aspect as well as a confirmatory statutory requirement.

In a bribery case based upon Intercepted Conversations, an application U/s 91 Cr.P.C was preferred on behalf of accused Sudhir Kumar Jain (Ex-CMD Syndicate Bank) by his Counsel Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate. 

The said correspondence are essential to know the legality and correctness of the procedure followed by agency. 

Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Telecommunication, Government of India were parties to the application. 

Ld. PP for CBI argued that the present case is pending for hearing on the point of charge and, therefore, such application under Section 91 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. 

Ld. Counsel Mr. Harsh K. Sharma vehemently relied upon recent precedents and argued that the trial court is bound to obtain such information even at the stage of framing of charge.

The Ld. Special Court also reiterated that there may be three category of documents i.e., (i) a document (relied/unrelied) collected during investigation and cited by the prosecution, (ii) a document relied by the accused in his defence and (iii) a document (whether relied by the prosecution and/or accused or not) which can be summoned by the court in its own power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court also stated that this Court is within its own power, under Section 91 Cr.P.C, to call or summon any document or record which is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The present case comes within the definition of “inquiry”. Therefore, this Court can issue summon /order to the concerned authority to send the desired document, if it is not barred under any provision of law.

The court allowed the application and opined that the decision of the Review Committee can be summoned being post facto decision, if it is agreed by the concerned authority. As such, the concerned competent authority is at liberty to disclose the information, as suggested below, in the sealed envelope to this Court, if desired:

(i) to state whether the copies of the permission orders as relied in this case were sent to the Review Committee or not. 

(ii)  what was the decision of the Review Committee constituted as per Rule 419A(16) of the Indian Telegraph Rules about the correctness of the permission granted under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

Counsels appearing for the applicant:

(Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate Founder Prosoll Law along with his team of lawyers comprising of Ms. Vaibhavi Sharma, Principal Associate, Mr. Lakshya Parasher, Senior Associate, Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Associate and Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Associate).


Tags assigned to this article:

Around The World

Advertisement