Page No.# 1/6 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 5810 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 June, 2025

Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak

Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010232002024




                                                                            2025:GAU-AS:8824

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/36/2024

            DR. SWETABH SUMAN, IRS(RETD.)
            S/O- LATE PROF. (DR.) B.K. SINGH,
            R/O- 10C, SECTOR 50, NOIDA,
            JANPAD G.B. NAGAR, U.P.- 201301.



            VERSUS

            CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
            THROUGH ITS HEAD OF BRANCH,
            ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH,
            BETKUCHI, OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE,
            NH-37, P.O.- GORCHUK, GUWAHATI,
            ASSAM- 781035.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR N Z LOTHA,

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,




                                    BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

                                            ORDER

27.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Z. Lotha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI for the respondent.

Page No.# 2/6

2. Petitioner is a retired IRS Officer. While in service, he was charge-sheeted in CBI ACB Guwahati Case No. RC0172018A0005 under Section 120B of the IPC read with Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. After filing of the charge sheet in said CBI ACB Guwahati Case No. RC0172018A0005, the same has been registered as Special Case No. 7/2020, CBI Vs. Doctor Swetabh Suman, IRS (retired) & Others, presently pending in the stage of consideration of charge in the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 03 at Chandmari, Guwahati.

4. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 03 at Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7/2020, by which, the said Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner does not have right under Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. to seize the documents that are neither collected nor relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of charge hearing.

5. The petitioner contended that earlier he approached this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2023 against the respondent CBI for a direction to the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI to consider his petition No. 15/2022 filed before the said learned Special Judge, CBI under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to provide him certain documents that are required by him before framing of the charges in Special Case No. 7/2020 pending before the said CBI Court.

6. After hearing the parties, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 26.09.2023 passed in said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2023 that was preferred by the petitioner, directed the learned Special Judge, CBI to dispose of said petition No. 15/2022 of the petitioner filed in said Special Case No. 7/2020 in accordance with law, specifying a time period therein.

7. After hearing the present petitioner and the respondent CBI, said learned Special Judge, CBI, considering the order of this Court dated 26.09.2023 passed in said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2023, by order dated 05.03.2024 disposed of said Petition No. 15/2022 of the petitioner, directing the respondent CBI, i.e., the prosecution, to serve the copies of the document Nos. D-74 to D-86 to the petitioner, which was relied by the prosecution in the charge-sheet; with further observation that the petitioner is one of the accused in said Special Case No. 7/2020 and is not entitled to get the documents mentioned in his said Petition No. 15/2022, since those are neither relied upon nor collected by the prosecution.

Page No.# 3/6

8. The petitioner contended that the learned Special Judge, CBI committed illegality in the order dated 05.03.2024 while disposing of his Petition No. 15/2022 by not considering to direct the prosecution, i.e., the respondent CBI to provide the documents mentioned in his petition No. 15/2022, as those are very much necessary for his discharge in said Special Case No. 7/2020 before framing of charge in the said case, stating that the respondent CBI relied on those documents in the offence memo/charge sheet filed in the said case against the petitioner.

9. By order dated 07.11.2024, the records of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2023 decided on 26.09.2023 that was preferred by the petitioner along with the records of Criminal Petition No. 312/2020 (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Swetabh Suman CIT Appeal & 6 others) decided on 29.10.2024 were called for.

10. It is seen that in his said Petition No. 15/2022 submitted before the learned Special Judge, CBI under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the petitioner prayed for a direction to CBI to supply records qua interception of telegraphic communication specifically applications moved by CBI under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Dispatch Register of CBI; through which, applications were sent to the Competent Authority, permission given by the Competent Authority and other communication between the CBI & Competent Authority and communication between the Service Provider & CBI qua alleged interception of telegraphic communication, advisories/letters of CBI to Service Provider for parallel lines to CBI that has been arraigned as evidence in the trial of said Special Case No. 7/2020.

11. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner from the charge sheet submitted in Case No. RC-05(A)/2018/GWH CBI, ACB Guwahati relating to FIR No. RC0172018A0005 placed the Para No. 31 that relates to permission to intercept the phone of accused persons and submitted that the relevant documents of such original permission granted by the Union of Home Secretary and Director of CBI for interception of mobile number of the petitioner, a part of the charge sheet has not been provided to the petitioner. In that regard, Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel also placed Serial Nos. 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the list of documents/articles in CBI/ACB/Guwahati Case No. RC-05(A)/2018 and stated that those materials have not yet been provided to the petitioner.

12. From the records of Criminal Petition No. 312/2020 ( Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Swetabh Suman CIT Appeal & 6 others) that was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on Page No.# 4/6

29.10.2024, Mr. Haloi, learned Standing Counsel, CBI placed before the Court that the documents which the petitioner is asking for in his Petition No. 15/2022 filed under Section 207 CrPC in said Special Case No. 7/2020 have already been annexed by the respondent CBI in its said Criminal Petition, copy of which along with the annexures were being provided to the present petitioner and the present petitioner had accordingly received them and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that those documents were not provided to him.

13. Mr. Srivastava learned Senior Counsel on perusal of the records of said Criminal Petition No. 312/2020 that was preferred by the respondent CBI against him, admitted that excepting those documents the petitioner is asking for, for which the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, have not been provided to the petitioner even in said Criminal Petition No. 312/2020.

14. Mr. Srivastava learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed the various provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as amended as well as the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, as amended. He has also relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, Hon'ble Kerala High court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1543.

15. Considered the judgment cited by Mr. Srivastava on behalf of the petitioner.

16. The respondent CBI contended that all the documents including the documents D-74 to D- 86 mentioned in the charge sheet have already been provided to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2023 passed in W.P. (Crl) No. 4/2023.

17. While considering the said Petition No. 15/2022 of the present petitioner, during its hearing, the CBI before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 03 at Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7/2020 submitted the list of un-relied documents, statements, material objects, exhibits etc. including the petitioner.

18. Mr. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the CBI by placing the order No. S.O.6227(E) dated 20.12.2018 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Cyber and Information Security Division), published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, Sec 3(ii) submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 4 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 the competent authority in the Ministry of Home Affairs of Union of India authorised ten Security and Intelligence Agency, Page No.# 5/6

including the Central Bureau of Investigation, for the purposes of interception, monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computed resource under the said 2000 Act.

19. Mr. Haloi, learned Standing Counsel, CBI also placed that the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (Department of Telecommunications) vide order No. GSR.18 dated 28.01.2014 amended the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 vide Indian Telegraph (1st Amendment of 2014) Rules, 2014, by which, Rule 419A was substituted. Rule 419(2) of said 2014 Rules, as amended, stipulates that ― Any order issued by the competent authority under sub-rule (1) shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within a period of seven working days.

20. Rule 16 of the said 2014 rules pertains to constitution of the Review Committee both by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. Rule 17 of said 2014 Rules provides that ― The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act (the Indian Telegraph Act) and when the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance to the provisions referred to above it may set aside the directions and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages.

21. Rule 18 of said 2014 Rules stipulates that ― Records pertaining to such directions for interception and intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorised Security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months unless these are or likely to be required for functional requirements.

22. Mr. Haloi, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has submitted that the CBI is yet to receive the opinion of the concerned Review Committee as per said 2014 Rules.

23. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering entire aspect of the matter the Court did not find any valid reasons to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 03 at Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7/2020 while disposing of the Petition No. 15/2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 207 CrPC in said Special Case No. 7/2020.

24. For the reasons above, this Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

Page No.# 6/6

Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 03 at Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7/2020 is hereby confirmed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant