Tag Archives: #chattisgarhhighcourt #phonetapping

WPPIL No. 134 of 2022

Appearance

Petitioner : Mr. Paras Jain and Ms. Anuja Sharma Ms. Vedagni Jangde and Mr. Naveen Nirala,

Respondent: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia

CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi,

Order dated: 02 .11.2023

Introduction

The High Court of Chhattisgarh conducted that its administrative side decided a representation seeking mandatory usage of ‘A4 size papers’ in the High Court and the subordinate Courts of the State for all purposes like preparation of applications, petitions, affidavits, etc.

Facts of the case

This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offense punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 120B, 384 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

The case of the prosecution is that during a search and seizure investigation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted one Mr. Suryakant Tiwari at a hotel room of Hotel Sheraton Grand, Bengaluru, certain incriminating materials are said to have been found, based upon which a complaint was lodged by the Income Tax Department at the Kadugodi, Police Station Bengaluru alleging offenses under Sections 186, 204 and 353 read with Section 120B of the IPC which led to the registration of the FIR.

The role of the present applicant is that he was an active member of the extortion syndicate. He was the focal point where all the extorted cash was deposited, stored and subsequently dispatched for utilization as per the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. A large amount of cash was also used to purchase immovable assets in the name of the present applicant. Many of the handwritten entries in the diaries were made by the present applicant only

Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case where the applicant would be entitled to the benefit under the exceptions carved out under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 further submit that provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA for grant of bail are also applicable for grant of anticipatory bail and the applicant fulfills the requisite conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 thus, he is entitled to get anticipatory bail. To substantiate his submission It has also been contended that a complaint has been filed against the present applicant and others for the commission of an offence under the Money Laundering Act. The learned Special Judge (PMLA) Raipur has taken cognizance of the said prosecution complaint. Thus, it is crystal clear that the present applicant is knowingly a party to the offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002

Analysis of the court

the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby rejected

it is clarified that the observations made in this judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present bail application, and these would not influence the trial court on the case’s merits, which would proceed by law and decide based on evidence led before it.

 All disputed factual and legal issues are left open.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

Click to view the judgement

 

Title: Aasha Lata Soni v. Durgesh Soni

Citation: CRMP No. 2112 of 2022

Decided on: 05.10.2023

Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Introduction

The Chattisgarh High Court while allowing the present petition held that recording a telephonic conversation without the knowledge and behind a person’s back amounts to breach of right to privacy as envisaged under article 21 of the Constitution of India, wherein the right to privacy is an essential component of right to life.

Facts of the case

The petitioner (wife) has challenged the order passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund, Chattisgarh, wherein the respondent’s (husband) application under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon the witness for further cross-examination was allowed. The petitioner has made an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC which has been pending before the Family Court since 2019. However, the respondent moved an application under Section 311 of the CrPC, in order to cross-examine the petitioner with regards to a recorded telephonic conversation. This application by respondent was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court.

Court’s observation and analysis

The Court in order to arrive at a decision made reference to the Supreme Court case of R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157, wherein it was held that a telephone recording which has been obtained unlawfully and irregularly is in breach of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution which contemplates procedure established by law with regard to deprivation of life or personal liberty. Reference was also made to the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301, wherein it was held that the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of ones home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Hence, telephone tapping would result in the breach of Article 21 of the Constitution, unless it is done according to the procedure established by law.

Similar issue was also dealt by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anurima alias Abha Mehta v. Sunil Mehta, AIR 2016 Madhya Pradesh 112, wherein it was held that recording conversation without the knowledge of the wife and behind her back would amount to infringement of her right to privacy and will be in breach of Article 11 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such recorded conversation cannot be admitted as evidence.

Taking into consideration the above judgements, the Chattisgarh High Court in the present matter, decided that the recorded telephonic conversation of the petitioner without her permission and behind her back would amount to infringement of her right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, wherein the right to privacy is an essential component of right to life. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Family Court wherein it allowed the respondent’s application under Section 311 of the CrPC. Accordingly the present petition was allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Amrita Rout

Click here to read judgement