DHARAMBIR KHATTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to raise questions with regard to seven interception orders purportedly passed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Telegraph Act') read with Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Telegraph Rules'). In the backdrop of these seven interception orders, the petitioner has prayed that:-

(2.) Before we proceed further, one of the seven orders of interception is set out hereinbelow by way of sample:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_4766_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The facts are few. It is apparent that there is a trial going on in CC No.12/2004 (RC No. AC 0001/2003) before the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. In that case, the petitioner is an accused. The prosecution is seeking to use as evidence the material collected pursuant to the seven interception orders mentioned above. According to the petitioner, the interception orders were passed purportedly under Section 5(2) of the said Telegraph Act, which provision itself is unconstitutional and, as a consequence thereof, the interception orders are void. It is further the case of the petitioner that the seven interception orders are, in any event, in violation of Section 5(2) of the said Telegraph Act and, therefore, the same should be declared as null and void. The petitioner also prays that this court should exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside and / or quash the order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the case involved the question as to the validity of Section 5(2) of the said Telegraph Act and, therefore, the application for reference to the High Court under Section 395, CrPC ought to have been allowed. It is furthermore the case of the petitioner that the case pending before the said Special Judge involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case and, therefore, this court ought to exercise the powers conferred upon it under Article 228 of the Constitution of India by withdrawing that case from the Special Judge and thereafter either dispose the case itself or determine the question of law and return the case to the Special Judge for disposal in conformity with the decision of this court.