In a bribery case based on intercepted conversations, a U/s 91 Cr.PC application was prioritized by Attorney Harsh K. Sharma, Attorney General, on behalf of defendant Sudhir Kumar Jain (former CMD Syndicate Bank).
On orders passed by Sh. NK Raka, Special Adjudicator, CBI, RADC, Ld. He opined that it was necessary to check the accuracy of the order passed under (2). A related aspect and also a statutory requirement for verification.
In a bribery case based on intercepted conversations, the application for U/s 91 Cr.PC was prioritized by Attorney Harsh K. Sharma Attorney on behalf of defendant Sudhir Kumar Jain (former CMD Syndicate Bank) .
The above correspondence is essential to know the legality and accuracy of the procedures followed by the Agency.
The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Telecommunications of the Government of India were parties to the application.
LD. The CBI PP argued that the case was pending review on the points of indictment and, therefore, that such a petition under Section 91 Cr.PC could not be maintained.
LD. Attorney Harsh K. Sharma relied heavily on recent case law, arguing that trial courts are obliged to obtain such information even at the prosecution stage.
Ld. The special tribunal also stated that documents fall into three categories: (i) documents collected during the investigation and cited by the prosecution (reliance/non-reliance), (ii) documents relied upon by the defendant in his defense, and (iii) ) Documents (whether or not relied upon by the prosecutor and/or defendant) which the court may summon in its sole power under section 91 Cr.PC read in conjunction with section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court also said that this Court had the power under Section 91 Cr.PC to summon or summon any document or record necessary or desirable for the purposes of an investigation, trial or other proceeding. This case falls under the definition of “inquiry.” Therefore, this court can issue subpoenas/orders to send necessary documents to the relevant authorities if not prohibited by any provision of law.
The court granted the application and opined that the review board’s decision could be summoned as a post-decision with the consent of the relevant authorities. As such, any competent authority concerned is free to disclose information in a sealed envelope to the Court, as proposed below, if desired.
(i) State whether a copy of the permit order relied upon in this case has been sent to the Review Board;
(ii) What was the decision of the Review Board constituted pursuant to Rule 419A(16) of the Indian Telegraph Regulations on the accuracy of the license granted under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Law?
Attorney to Appear for Applicant:
(Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate Founder Prosoll Law, Ms. Vaibhavi Sharma, Principal Associate, Mr. Lakshya Parasher, Senior Associate, Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Associate, Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Associate Attorney Team) .
