Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 3132 Del
Judgement Date : 6 July, 2010
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 6th July , 2010
Crl. M.C. No. 2127/2010
% 06.07.2010
YOGENDER KUMAR ... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Gulati & Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Advs. for CBI
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORAL
1. By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th March,
2010 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI) whereby an application of the
petitioner seeking exclusion of a piece of evidence was dismissed. The evidence
which the petitioner wanted to be excluded was a tape recorded conversation
and its transcription proved on record by CBI. This conversation was recorded by
the complainant at its own end by putting a recording device in the telephone.
The plea taken by the petitioner before the court was that the recording of
conversation was in violation of Indian Telegraph Act.
Crl. M.C. no. 2127 of 2010 Page 1 Of 2
2. If the conversation is going on between two persons and one person tape
records conversation of the other person, no permission under Indian Telegraph
Act is required for such recording. Permission under Telegraphs Act is required
only by investigating agency where the conversation is recorded by intercepting
the telephone line without the knowledge of the conversing parties. The learned
Special Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the application.
3. I find no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed.
July 06, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. acm Crl. M.C. no. 2127 of 2010 Page 2 Of 2
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!