Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Yogender Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2010 Latest Caselaw 3132 Del

Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 3132 Del
Judgement Date : 6 July, 2010

Delhi High Court
Yogender Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 July, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
      *            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
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter