Court Grants Bail, Allegations Not Scheduled Offences. Emphasis on Privacy Rights.

The court granted bail to the applicant as the allegations did not constitute scheduled offences under PMLA. The actions of ISEC and the applicant did not meet the criteria for offences under the Telegraph Act, IT Act, IPC, or PC Act. The decision emphasized the importance of privacy rights and the specific requirements for invoking penal provisions under various statutes.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Legality of phone call interception and recording by ISEC Services Pvt. Ltd. at NSE.
2. Applicability of various sections of the Indian Telegraph Act, Information Technology Act, Indian Penal Code, and Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Determination of whether the actions constituted a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
4. Evaluation of the bail application of the applicant in light of the above issues.

Detailed Analysis

1. Legality of Phone Call Interception and Recording by ISEC Services Pvt. Ltd. at NSE
The case revolves around the allegation that ISEC Services Pvt. Ltd., in conspiracy with other accused, illegally intercepted MTNL lines at NSE between 2009 to 2017 and recorded calls without the consent of NSE employees. The Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR based on these allegations. The applicant argued that NSE had been monitoring calls since 1997 and that ISEC was merely analyzing pre-recorded call data provided by NSE. However, the court noted that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union Of India.

2. Applicability of Various Sections of Relevant Acts
Telegraph Act: The applicant contended that Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, which allows the government to intercept messages, does not apply to private entities like NSE recording their own phone lines. The court found that the recording device does not constitute a 'telegraph' under the Act, and thus, Sections 20, 21, 24, and 26 of the Telegraph Act were not applicable.

Information Technology Act: The applicant argued that Sections 72 and 72A of the IT Act, which penalize breach of confidentiality and privacy, were not applicable as ISEC was not acting under any powers conferred by the IT Act. The court agreed, noting that Section 72 specifically applies to persons acting under powers conferred by the Act, which was not the case here.

Indian Penal Code: The court found that the ingredients for offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) IPC were not made out. There was no evidence of dishonest inducement or wrongful gain, and the prosecution failed to identify any victim who suffered a wrongful loss.

Prevention of Corruption Act: The court noted that Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant, was not applicable as NSE is a private entity, and the applicant did not hold public office during the relevant period.

3. Determination of Whether Actions Constituted a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA
The court examined whether the revenue generated by ISEC constituted 'proceeds of crime' under PMLA. Since none of the scheduled offences under the IT Act, IPC, or PC Act were made out, the provisions of PMLA were not attracted. The court relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which held that PMLA provisions apply only when property is derived from a scheduled offence.

4. Evaluation of the Bail Application
The court considered the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail, which include giving the public prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail and having reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty. The court found that none of the scheduled offences were prima facie made out, and thus, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence. Consequently, the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, appearing before the court as required, and not leaving the country during the bail period.

Conclusion
The court granted bail to the applicant, concluding that the allegations did not constitute scheduled offences under PMLA, and the actions of ISEC and the applicant did not meet the criteria for offences under the Telegraph Act, IT Act, IPC, or PC Act. The decision emphasized the importance of privacy rights and the specific requirements for invoking penal provisions under various statutes.

---