Patna High Court
Shashi Shekhar vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 7 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30307 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Shashi Shekhar S/o Late Priyavarta Kumar Verma, R/o Flat No. 506,
Maharaja Kameshwar, Residential Complex, Frazer Road, P.S.- Kotwali,
District- Patna-800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Central Bureau Of Investigation Through D. I. G. Of Police, A. C. B.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. K. Shrivastava
Mr. Apurv Harsh
Mr. Manu Tripurari
Ms. Shubhi Shrivastava
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap
Mr. Gaurav Sharma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh
Mr. Ambar Narayan
Ms. Barkha
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 07-03-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed for quashing the entire
criminal proceedings of Special Case no. 03/2017 [R.C. No. 15
(A) /2017], registered under section 120 B of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
2/22
3. The prosecution case, as culled out from the records
of this case, is as follows:
4. On 23.08.2017, the First Information Report, bearing
RC0232017A0015 was registered under Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the Central Bureau of
Investigation, ACB, Patna, against three accused persons, namely,
Shashi Shekhar (petitioner), Raj Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Kumar
Agrawal.
5. The petitioner, while posted and functioning as
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement(ED), Patna, during
the year 2017, in conspiracy with Raj Kumar Agarwal of M/s Set
Square Holding Private Limited, by abusing his official position as
public servant, has been obtaining and accepting illegal
gratification from different persons as a motive or reward for
discharging his official duties and has illegally collected more than
Rs. 10 lacs, which was parked with co-accused Raj Kumar
Agarwal, a businessman with the motive to take back the same in
the garb of a lawful income at a later date.
6. It has further been alleged that in pursuance of the
above criminal conspiracy, the petitioner demanded from Raj
Kumar Agarwal the proceeds of the illegal gratification to the tune
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
3/22
of Rs. 10 lacs parked by him and kept with Raj Kumar Agarwal to
be delivered to the petitioner in his office at Patna or at any other
place along with some blank cheques through Dilip Kumar
Agrawal, who is nephew and representative of Raj Kumar
Agarwal.
7. After registration of the First Information Report, a
trap team was constituted, consisting of CBI officials and two
other independent witnesses, in line with the tip received from the
source and it was informed to everyone that Shashi Shekhar is
arriving at Patna Airport by GO AIR Flight No. G8-131 and will
be landing at Patna at 02:10 PM on 23.08.2017 and after arrival at
Patna, he was to go to his office situated at Bank Road, Patna.
Thereafter, he would proceed to his residence situated at Flat no.
506, Maharaja Kameshwar Residential Complex, Fraser Road,
Patna.
8. Acting on the said information, trap team waited
discreetly at the exit gate of the Patna Airport. After sometime, the
petitioner came out of the Airport with a red trolley bag and he
boarded a Hyundai I10 car and proceeded towards his office. The
Trap team followed him discreetly. The petitioner reached his
office and went inside and after some time, he came out of his
office and boarded a Maruti WagonR car and reached his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
4/22
residential flat. The petitioner came out of the car and went inside
his residential flat. The Trap Team waited outside the residential
complex of the petitioner and after some time, a person, whose
face was similar to the photograph of Dilip Kumar Agrawal
provided by the source, arrived with a white polythene bag on a
coffee-coloured Honda Activa Scooty and he went inside the
residential complex. After some time, Dilip Kumar Agrawal came
out of the residential complex and started his Scooty. At that
moment, one of the member of the Trap Team, namely, Nitesh
Kumar, TLO, intercepted him and after disclosing his identity,
interrogated him before the independent witnesses and on such
interrogation, he disclosed his name as Dilip Kumar Agarwal, S/o
Late Sawan Mal Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s New Dilip and
Company, situated at Langar Toli, Patna. He further disclosed that
he had gone inside the residential complex to hand over one
envelope to the petitioner, as per the instructions of his maternal
uncle (mama), namely, Raj Kumar Agarwal, who resides in
Kolkata. He further disclosed that as per the instruction of his
maternal uncle, earlier a person had handed him over an envelope
at about 01 PM to him for its delivery to the petitioner.
9. Thereafter, the Trap Team, along with Dilip Kumar
Agarwal entered into the residential complex of the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
5/22
door bell was rung and the door was opened by the petitioner.
Nitesh Kumar, TLO, after disclosing his identity told the petitioner
that he had taken the delivery of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Dilip Kumar
Agarwal, upon which he kept mum. The red-trolley bag, which
was brought by the petitioner from the Airport and one another
black colour bag was searched and a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- was
recovered in presence of the independent witnesses. The bedroom
of the petitioner's flat was also searched, from where a sum of Rs.
4,40,000/- was recovered. Besides this amount, a sum of Rs.
1,28,800/- was also recovered. Thus, total of Rs. 12,28,800/- was
recovered from the flat of the petitioner.
10. Upon recovery of huge cash amount from the flat of
the petitioner, the petitioner was interrogated and the petitioner
told that he had received Rs. 3,00,000/- from Dilip Kumar
Agarwal as he had given it to him earlier for renovation of his
house at Katihar, which he could not do, as such he has returned
the amount, but Dilip Kumar Agarwal denied to have known the
petitioner from earlier. The petitioner was again subjected to
sustained interrogation and he admitted that the amount of Rs.
11,00,000/- was delivered to him by Dilip Kumar Agarwal.
Thereafter, the petitioner as well as Dilip Kumar Agarwal were
arrested.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
6/22
11. On completion of investigation, charge sheet, dated
20.10.2017
was filed against the petitioner, finding the case true
under Sections 11, 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the ‘1988 Act’)
and cognizance was also taken by the learned trial Court.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from
bare perusal of the charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, no offence under Sections 11 and 13(1)(d) of the
1988 Act is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that
the entire charge sheet is based on the confessional statement of
Raj Kumar Agrawal. However, the said statement is not supported
by any other corroborative statement. No material has been
brought in the charge sheet to demonstrate that the petitioner had
made any demand for illegal gratification or there was acceptance
of any such demand. Furthermore, considering the case of the
prosecution without going into its truth or otherwise, in the
absence of any proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant, no offence is made out under
Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. He further submits that after
perusal of the charge sheet, no offence under Section 11 of the
1988 Act is made out against the petitioner and the Central Bureau
of Investigation has failed to bring as to who is the person from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
7/22
whom the petitioner has received valuable things. Furthermore, the
second limb, which says accepts or obtains a valuable thing
without consideration, is also not fulfilled.
13. The petitioner relies for the aforesaid proposition on
the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta v.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in MANU/SC/1617/2022 :
2022:INSC:1280 :2023 2 SCC 731 and R. S. Nayak v A.R.
Antulay and Others (AIR 1986 2045).
14. He further submits that for one cause of action, only
one First Information Report is maintainable and since one First
Information Report, disclosing offences under Section 13 (1) (e)
i.e. Disproportionate Assets, has already been registered, the
present First Information Report registered for offences under
Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the 1988 Act has to
go as none of the offences are made out against the petitioner.
15. He next submits that telephonic conversations
recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation, by which the
prosecution seeks to prove charges levelled against the petitioner
cannot be said to be legally admissible evidence as the mandatory
requirements laid down under section 5 (2) of The Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 A of Indian Telegraph Rules,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
8/22
1995 have not been followed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
16. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied
upon the decisions of Supreme Court, in the cases of People’s
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and
another, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301 and Ritesh Sinha v. State
of UP, reported in 2019 (8) SCC 1.
17. It has further been argued that the illegal tapping of
telephone conversation being a violation of the right to privacy
has, now, been accepted and reinforced as a fundamental right
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the
Supreme Court, in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1.
18. He further submits that the offences alleged in the
First information Report, is Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act,
but the charges of First Information Report, under Sections 7 and
12 of the 1988 Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, have been dropped in the charge sheet. The offence alleged
in the charge sheet are under Section 11, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the
1988 Act, the charge under Section 11 of the 1988 Act, was added
in the charge sheet and charge under Section 120B of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
9/22
Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the 1988 Act, were dropped
by the Central Bureau of Investigation, finding no evidence. The
Central Bureau of Investigation admitted the factual matrix of
dropping charges as alleged in the First Information Report, under
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of
the 1988 Act, and filed charge sheet. A closure report, under
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the rest
of the named accused persons in the First Information Report was
filed and the petitioner is the only accused now to be prosecuted
by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There remains no
allegation of any bribe taking, demand of any bribe or acceptance
of any bribe by the petitioner. There is no factum or witness of
crime, there is no complainant of crime, who can be cross-
examined by the petitioner.
19. In the year 2017, the petitioner was posted at Zonal
Office of the Directorate of Enforcement at Patna in the rank of
Assistant Director and on 21.08.2017, a team of Central Bureau of
Investigation accosted him at Patna Airport where he had arrived
from Delhi and directed him to accompany them to his office in
Patna, where the said office was searched by the Central Bureau of
Investigation and thereafter, he was taken by Central Bureau of
Investigation to his residence in Patna where he was found to be in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
10/22
possession of Rs.12,28,800/-, which was alleged to be amount of
illegal gratification received by him from Raj Kumar Agrawal and
delivered to him by Dilip Kumar Agrawal, who was alleged to
have come to the residence of the petitioner at Patna with an
amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-.
20. The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of
Investigation on 23.08.2017 at the office of the DIG, CBI, ACB,
Patna, as recorded in Arrest Memo of CBI filed before the learned
Trial Court on 24.08.2017, admitting that though the case of the
Central Bureau of Investigation was that of a Trap Case and the
petitioner was accused of receiving illegal gratification of
Rs.11,00,000/- from Dilip Kumar Agrawal on behalf of Raj Kumar
Agrawal, the Central Bureau of Investigation arrested him on
21.08.2017 while receiving alleged illegal gratification from Dilip
Kumar Agrawal and when Dilip Kumar Agrawal was arrested by
the CBI on 21.08.2017 for allegedly delivering to the petitioner
alleged amount of illegal gratification at his residence on
21.08.2017.
21. The First Information Report lodged by the Central
Bureau of Investigation accusing the petitioner as bribe taker and
two more persons, namely, Raj Kumar Agrawal and Dilip Kumar
Agrawal as bribe giver, but after investigation, the Central Bureau
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
11/22
of Investigation dropped the entire case of demand and receipt of
alleged bribe by the petitioner and payment of the same by Raj
Kumar Agrawal and delivery of the same by Dilip Kumar Agrawal
and has dropped charges under Sections 7 and 12 of the 1988 Act
read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has
pressed Sections 11, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. The
offence, under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
1988 Act can not be pressed if ingredients of offence under Section
7 of the 1988 Act are not present there.
22. He further argued that after investigation, the Central
Bureau of Investigation has admitted that there is no case of
demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner nor receipt of the
same and/or criminal conspiracy to commit any crime. There was
no case of abetment of any offence by anyone including the
petitioner as the Central Bureau of Investigation has dropped
Section 12 of the 1988 Act in its charge sheet and Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the only material issue that needs to
be considered by this Court is if an offence under Section 13(1)(d)
of the 1988 Act can be alleged if there is no demand made for
illegal gratification by the petitioner and if that being the case, can
an offence under Section 11 of the 1988 Act be alleged by the
Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioner. Lastly, it has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
12/22
been submitted that no offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 11 of
the 1988 Act is made out and allowing criminal proceeding and
trial to continue would amount to failure of justice and abuse of
the process of administration of justice.
23. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Central
Bureau of Investigation argued that investigation has revealed that
the petitioner, being the Assistant Director in Enforcement
Directorate, Patna, by abusing his official position as a public
servant firstly parked Rs. 11,65,000/- by illegally obtaining and
accepting illegal gratification from different persons as a motive or
reward for discharging his official duties with Raj Kumar Agarwal,
a businessman with the motive to take back in the garb of a lawful
income at a later date and later demanded from him Rs.
10,00,000/- and some cheques, out of that money which was duly
recovered by the trap team in the form of Rs. 12,28,800/- on
23.08.2017 from the flat belonging to the petitioner. It also
establishes that the petitioner obtained huge cash amount which
was not his legal remuneration without any consideration from Raj
Kumar Agarwal with whom he was concerned with the proceeding
and legal formalities in a case under the provisions of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The act of the petitioner to obtain
Rs. 10,00,000/- and blank cheques, which he subsequently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
13/22
received in the form of Rs. 11,00,000/- from Raj Kumar Agarwal
through his nephew Dilip Kumar Agarwal and in due course the
recovery of five blank cheques sent through speed post intended to
be delivered to him reasonably establishes his mala fide intention
to obtain pecuniary gains by abusing his official position as a
public servant. Further dealing with such a huge amount through
Raj Kumar Agarwal, who happens to be one of the accused in
FERA case at the time of his posting at Enforcement Directorate,
Kolkata, clearly shows the dishonest act on the part of the
petitioner which is unbecoming of a public servant.
24. He further submits that recorded conversation
among the petitioner, Raj Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Kumar
Agarwal clearly revealed that the petitioner had demanded Rs.
10,00,000/- in cash and ten cheques of Rs. 10000-12000.
25. Investigation further revealed that Dilip Kumar
Agarwal handed over Rs. 11,00,000/- to the petitioner on the
instruction of Raj Kumar Agarwal on the day of trap. During
investigation, the statement of Dilip Kumar Agarwal under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded before
the Judicial Magistrate in which he has accepted handing over of
Rs. 11,00,000/- to petitioner on the instruction of his Mama
(maternal uncle) Raj Kumar Agarwal on the day of trap and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
14/22
categorically denied having any acquaintance with the petitioner
from before. The aforesaid facts indicate that Dilip Kumar
Agarwal was used as a conduit and had no direct role in this
episode.
26. During investigation, the sample voice of the
petitioner and Raj Kumar Agarwal was obtained and sent to CFSL,
New Delhi to compare the same with the recorded telephonic
conversation by the Special Unit, New Delhi. The forensic voice
examination report from the CFSL, New Delhi vide certificate no.
TC -5846 dated 02.01.2019 gave positive reports with regard to
the questioned voice of the petitioner as well as that of Raj Kumar
Agarwal and Dilip Kumar Agarwal.
27. Since the acts aforesaid disclosed commission of
offence punishable under Section 11 and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act by the petitioner, accordingly
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner under the above
sections of law.
28. The petitioner took back the ill gotten amount from
Raj Kumar Agarwal without any consideration with whom he was
concerned with the proceedings and legal formalities of the FERA
case registered in 1994 at the Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata
where the accused was posted as Assistant Enforcement Officer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
15/22
during that period. In addition, for obtaining the said pecuniary
advantage from Raj Kumar Agarwal there has been clear efforts on
the part of the petitioner in terms of his visiting Kolkata for
parking the ill gotten money and consequent demand for money
and cheques from Raj Kumar Agarwal and lastly accepting the
same from Dilip Kumar Agarwal. There is sufficient oral and
documentary evidence against the petitioner. Cognizance has also
been taken. Hence the prayer of the petitioner is devoid of any
merit and needs to be rejected.
29. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance
on the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the cases of Devendra
Nath Padhi v. State of Odisha, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568,
CBI v. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 379; P.
Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, B.
Noha v. State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 277, Fertico
Marketing and Others v. CBI, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 525.
30. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the materials on record.
31. The ambit and scope of Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, has elaborately been discussed by the
Supreme Court starting from the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866]; State of Haryana v. Chaudhary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
16/22
Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and
various other judgments.
32. The Supreme Court has broadly given the guidelines
at the time of exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India. The broad parameters, while exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as prescribed
by the Supreme Court are that neither a detailed inquiry nor a
meticulous analysis of the material nor any assessment of the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing. It is not necessary
for the Court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out
whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
33. The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution. The First Information Report
/complaint or as a matter of fact even charge sheet is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged.
If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely
on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
17/22
the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the criminal
proceeding is warranted only where the First Information Report/
complaint or evidence collected during investigation is so bereft of
even the basic facts, which are absolutely necessary for making
out the offence.
34. Coming to the facts of the present case, the case at
hand is a trap case based upon reliable source information. The
charge sheet contains a list of 24 witnesses who are proposed to be
examined by the prosecution to prove the case against the
petitioner. This is a case where the charge sheet has been filed after
investigation and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.
35. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of Neeraj
Dutta (supra) in support of his argument.
36. In the case of C. K. Damodaran Nair v.
Government of India, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 477, the
Supreme Court has considered the word “obtain” and said that
“obtain” means to secure or gain (something) as as a result of
request or effort. In the case of obtainment, the initiative vests in
the person who receives and, in that context, a demand or request
from him will be primary requisite for an offence under Section 5
(1) (d), now Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
18/22
37. In the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that if a public servant makes a demand and the
bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded
gratification which, in turn, is received by the public servant, it is a
case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand
for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant.
38. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the
case of Neeraj Dutta (supra), learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that without proof of demand, no offence under Section 13
(1) (d) of the 1988 Act can be made out. He further argued that in
the absence of ingredients of offence under section 7 of the Act, no
offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the 1988 Act can be attracted.
In the same very decision, the Supreme Court has held that in the
absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary,
oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to draw an inferential
deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7
and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act,
based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Further, the
fact in issue, i.e. the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct, oral or documentary evidence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
19/22
39. In the present case, one such evidence, which has
been brought by way of charge sheet, is the recorded telephonic
conversation, from which, it is evident that the petitioner
demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and ten cheques of Rs. 10000-
12000/- from Raj Kumar Agrawal.
40. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that
telephonic conversation recorded without the consent of the
petitioner cannot be taken as a piece of evidence inasmuch as the
Central Bureau of Investigation registered First Information
Report for trap case, based on interception of telegraph and is
relying on intercepted telegraphic material, but it did not follow at
all the law as laid down by the Supreme Court for interception of
the telegraph and the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, and Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph
Rules, 1956, without which the intercepted telegraphic material is
not admissible in evidence and all action based on such telegraphic
material is liable to be quashed.
41. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600, a question arose before
the Supreme Court regarding the legality and admissibility of
intercepted telephone calls in the context of telephonic
conversation, the Supreme Court was of the view that Section 5(2)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
20/22
of the Telegraph Act or Rule 419-A does not deal with any rule of
evidence. It has been held that non-compliance or inadequate
compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act does not per
se affect the admissibility. The legal position regarding the
question of admissibility of the tape-recorded conversation
illegally collected or obtained is no longer res integra in view of
the decision of Supreme Court, in the case of R.M. Malkani v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 471. In that
case, the Supreme Court clarified that a contemporaneous tape
record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is
admissible as res gestae under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. The
law has been laid down that any evidence cannot be refused to be
admitted by the Court on the ground that it had been obtained
illegally.
42. In the case of K. S. Puttaswamy and Another v.
Union of India and others, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, the
Supreme Court has held that “right to privacy” has multiple facets
and though such right can be classified as a part of fundamental
right emanating from Articles 19(1)(a) and (d) and Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, yet it is not absolute, and it is always
subject to certain reasonable restrictions on the basis of compelling
social, moral and public interest and any such right when asserted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
21/22
by the citizen in the court of law, then it has to go through a
process of case-to-case development.
43. Nonetheless, it is altogether a different case where
such evidence is admissible or not, which will be examined during
trial of the case.
44. In the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not desirable for the Court to hold a
full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence collected by the
investigating agency to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. At the time of deciding the petition for
quashing, only prima facie case is to be seen and the truthfulness
of the allegations are not to be seen. The learned C.B.I. Court, after
submission of charge sheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation
and after finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, has
taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.
45. From perusal of the First Information Report and the
charge sheet, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the
allegation put forth against the petitioner.
46. On careful scrutiny and analysis of the allegations
incorporated in the First Information Report and the charge sheet
discussed herein above, a prima facie case is made out against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30307 of 2018 dt.07-03-2025
22/22
petitioner and the learned Special Court, C.B.I., has rightly taken
cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.
47. Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances, discussed and noticed above, I am of the
considered opinion that the investigation and the order taking
cognizance are not so erroneous that allowing the trial to progress
may cause miscarriage of justice. In the result, I do not find any
merit in this application.
48. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
49. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 10.01.2025 Uploading Date 07-03-2025 Transmission Date 07-03-2025
[ad_1]
Source link