Aman Shah vs. State Thru. Cbi/Ac-1, New Delhi

Held

The Court held that the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit and were dismissed. Regarding the first issue, while the applicants argued the FIR was ante-dated, the Court did not make a specific finding on this point in the provided text, focusing instead on the overall prima facie case. Concerning the second issue, the Court found that the applicants' reliance on the Supreme Court case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava was misplaced. The Court reasoned that the present case was distinguishable because call interception was not the only evidence. The CBI had collected other evidence, including account records of bribe money payments maintained by a co-accused in a pen drive, and had examined 12 witnesses. Therefore, the Court concluded that the allegations in the charge sheet prima facie indicated the commission of cognizable offenses that warranted a trial. The Court found no illegality in the trial court's order rejecting the discharge applications and framing charges. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Facts

Three applicants, Aman Shah, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, and Rajeev Singh Chandel, filed applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders rejecting their discharge applications and framing charges against them. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged an FIR alleging an organized collection of illegal gratification by Sansar Chand, Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Kanpur, with the applicants, who were Superintendents, acting as public servants involved in the scheme. The FIR detailed how private parties, including M/s Shishu Soap and Chemical Private Limited, allegedly paid illegal gratification through a hawala channel. The CBI investigated and filed a charge sheet against 15 persons, including the applicants. The applicants argued the FIR was ante-dated and based on illegally intercepted telephone calls, violating their right to privacy. The CBI contended that call interception was not the sole evidence, and other evidence, including account records and witness testimonies, supported the charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR lodged by the CBI was ante-dated, rendering it invalid? The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged at 9:50 a.m. on February 2, 2018, while the intercepted calls forming its basis were made at 4:46 p.m. on the same date, suggesting an ante-dating. The revenue did not explicitly address this point in the provided text. 2. Whether the telephone calls forming the basis of the prosecution were illegally intercepted, making them inadmissible in evidence? The applicants contended that the interception order, if any, could only be made under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for specific public emergencies or security interests, which were not met in this case. They relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India and K. S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the right to privacy in telephone conversations. The revenue argued that call interception was not the sole evidence and that other evidence, including account records and witness testimonies, supported the charges, implying the intercepted calls, even if challenged, were part of a larger evidential matrix.