The bench was dealing with a criminal revision plea trial court order rejecting a discharge application by one, Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi, the former CEO of a Cantonment Board, who was accused of corruption.
Tripathi was accused of demanding ₹1.65 lakh as a bribe through Shashi Mohan, a member of the board.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had recorded a telephonic conversation between the two accused persons on a digital voice recorder, after one of the accused put the phone on speakerphone. During this conversation, the co-accused allegedly told Tripathi that 6 percent of the amount had been paid.
According to the CBI, Tripathi had responded by saying ‘yes’ and when Mohan tried to carry the conversation forward, the former forbade him to talk on the issue and asked him to talk in the office.
Tripathi sought discharge from this corruption case on the ground that the telephonic conversation was not admissible as evidence.
His counsel argued that Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act permits interception of communication only in certain contingencies, and that too under the orders of the government.
Source: Barandbench
