there was no question to give an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to co-accused Shashi Kant; there is no evidence to the effect that the revisionist had arranged an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,00,000/-; he is 62 years old senior citizen, who is patient of diabetes and hypertension; charge sheet has been filed merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises pursuant to which he was arrested by C.B.I. and against his will Investigating Officer compelled him to give voice samples, which were not taken in presence of his legal advisor nor under any order of the High Court; the prosecution has not filed any order of review by Competent Authority along with Chalani documents nor copy of any such order has been provided to the revisionist-accused, hence there was strong reason to believe that Competent Authority had not reviewed the interceptions of telephonic messages of the revisionist (Tel. No. 9810079231) within stipulated period, hence they were liable to be destroyed and cannot be read and relied upon by the prosecution; except the alleged interceptions of mobile phones, which has no legal value in the eyes of law, there is no evidence against him; the so-called conversation has been recorded without registration of F.I.R. which cannot be treated as evidence against the revisionist as per the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act and Rules made by the Government of India; revisionist had obtained information under R.T.I. Act, which shows that all the correspondence and conversations intercepted during the relevant period, had already been destroyed as per the information given by the Ministry; lastly it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the transcription of the conversations allegedly intercepted, has no value since the prosecution has destroyed the original C.D., which had recording of the conversation and therefore in the light of provisions of Indian Evidence Act when the original piece of evidence has been destroyed, no secondary proof of the same is possible to be given because secondary evidence also has to be prepared on the basis of original. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a catena of rulings in this regard i.e. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699, Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1400, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1967 SC 526 and Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 .
