Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
On August 30th, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court held that a recorded phone conversation is an admissible piece of evidence, and it cannot be discarded even if obtained illegally.
The Bench held that “The communication between the mobile phones of two accused persons when recorded on a digital voice recorder after putting the call on speaker, will not amount to interception”. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed an order on a revision plea moved by Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi, the former CEO of Fatehgarh Cantonment Board.
The petitioner had approached the High Court against the trial court’s order which rejected his discharge application seeking clean chit in a bribery case.
The petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the trial court on the ground that the entire case was based on the recording of a phone conversation which was obtained illegally and since this evidence cannot be admissible, the proceedings before the trial court were a futile exercise.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s revision plea and held that “Whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the petitioner.”
The bench highlighted that the relevance criteria is the only one that matters in terms of whether or not evidence is admissible in India.
Justice Vidyarthi explained, “The law is clear that an evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the court on the ground that it had been obtained illegally.”
The petitioner was accused of demanding Rs 1.65 lakh in bribes through Shashi Mohan, a member of the Board. The CBI had recorded a telephonic conversation between the two accused on a digital voice recorder after one of the accused put the phone on speaker. The co-accused allegedly informed Tripathi during this exchange that 6% of the total had been paid. According to the CBI, Tripathi answered “yes” and when Mohan wanted to continue the call, the former told him not to bring up the subject and asked him to speak with him in the office.
Advocate Prateek Tewari appeared for Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi and Advocate Shiv P Shukla appeared for the CBI.
Name of the case: Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Via C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow And Another
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi