Search the Internet          Tips

Intercepted evidence valid in Parliament attack case: Court

The accused - S A R Geelani, a suspended lecturer in a college under the Delhi University, JeM militant Shaukat Hussain Guru and his wife Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru had challenged the alleged intercepted evidence contending that it was illegal and inadmissible.

Their counsel had submitted that the interception of telephonic conversation was unauthorised during the relevant period of time.

Besides, no documents showing that the interception was done in accordance with POTA provisions were furnished to the accused, they argued.

Rejecting the submission, the court said, "Evidence collected by various police officials when the case was registered under different provisions of the law i.e. Indian Penal Code, Explosives Substance Act and Arms Act cannot be washed out merely because on December 19, 2001, provisions of POTA were not part of the FIR and investigation."

"The evidence collected by the police between December 13 and 19 cannot be eschewed and the investigation in this regard cannot be said to be null and void," designated judge S N Dhingra said dismissing the application of three accused persons, including a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) militant seeking exclusion of evidence obtained through interception of communication.

PTI

Complete Coverage: The Attack on Parliament

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report