APHC010432172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6923 OF 2024 Between: Kolnati Linga Rao, s/o Suryanarayana, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gandepalli Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 2. Sarepalli Srinivas Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 55 years. Business, R/o Door No: 1- 4 - 287, Lalitha Nivas, RTC Workshop Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in CrI.M.P.No. 1730 of 2024 in C.C.No.2371 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, NTR District, and set aside the order dated 24,09.2024, passed in CrI.M.P.No. 1730/2024. -.r^URArr' ■%. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/ Complainant in C.C.No.2371 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandigama, NTR District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI YADAVALLI RAMESH, ADVOCATE The Court made the following ORDER : [34571 APHCOIOiSZ"! 72024 IN (Sp S' JUSTICE HARINATH.N pia!0!tijeLSS22!2224 present honourable SRI r.RlWHNMi-— the pETlTlONERfACCUSED Between; Kolnati Unga f^aO’ and plain ANT(S) .respondenticom Pradesh titioner/accused; The State Of Andhra and Others counsel for the Pe .ARUN KUMAR R theResponden J YADAVAUI RAMESH prosecutor following; t/cotnpla«”3"'^®^'’ 1 Counsel for 2. PUBLIC The Court made the II2II CRLPNo.6923 of 2024 the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. CRIMINAL PETITION Nn fi923 of 90941 N order- The petitioner is challenging the orders passed of 2024 in CC.No.2371 of 2021 Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. 2- The petitioner has filed CC.No.2371 in Crl.MP.No.1730 on the file of Additional Judicial of 2021 against the 2^^ 138 of NI Act. cross-examined the petitioner and also seeking to bring on record the a certificate under Section 65 -B of the Indian respondent for the alleged offence under Section The 2"^ respondent has filed Crl.MP.No.1730 of 2024 pendrive along with Evidence Act. 3- The learned Magistrate has allowed respondent and permitted the pendrive containing the call the 2"'^ respondent and the the petition filed by the 2"'* respondent to submit the records between the petitioner and petitioner and one third party. The petition was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order ^ - infringes petitioner. It is submitted that the passed in the CrI.MP is against the settled law and it also i the right of privacy of the CRLPNo.6923 of 2024 conversation obtained by tapping of telephone is not admissible in law. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, 5. that without the authorization of the competent authority tapping and recording of phone conversation is unauthorized and such recording cannot be submitted in the Court as evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 6. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the 2'"'^ respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments Rayalam. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Nagaphanender Rayala\ Vishal Kaushik Vs. Family Court and others^, Sanjay Pandey Vs. Directorate of Enforcement^, Government of India, Rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Vs. Smt.K.L.D.Nagasree'*, Neera Agarwal Vs. Mahender Kumar Agarwal®. 7. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgments dealt with the tapping of a telephone and using the 8. 1 (2008) 1 ALT 613 2 (2015) AIR (Raj) 146 3 BA1LCRL.M.(BAIL) 957/2022 of High Court of Delhi 'I WA.Nos.161 and 70 of 2007 of High Court of AP 5 (2009) 5 ALT 518 UAH CRLPNo.6923 of 2024 conversation recorded therefrom. In the present case it is recording of the telephonic conversation without intervention of any third party and cannot be equated with tapping of the telephone. 9. The technological advances in mobile communication have reached the next level. With the advent of smart phones several devices have built-in automatic call recording facility. In handsets the call recording applications can be downloaded. The conversation between two parties over a phone call can be easily recorded subject to such feature being available on the handset. Such recording cannot be equated with tapping of a telephone conversation. some 10. The petitioner is justified in submitting that any illegal tapping and recording of conversation by the security agencies cannot be used in any criminal case. However, the case on hand is not related to tapping of a telephonic conversation. It is a simple case of recording the telephonic conversation on a phone. There is a sea of difference in tapping of a telephone-line and recording such conversation. The recording of any conversation automatically over a smart phone cannot be equated with tapping of a phone. As such, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the % CRLPNo,6923 of 2024 learned Magistrate and this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the well-considered order of the learned Magistrate. 11. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. SD/- K.TATARAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, NTR District. 2. One CC to Sri R.Arun Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC TAC high court DATED; 25/06/2025 ORDER CRLP 6923/2024 ^Sr sT 1 9 JUL 2025 irentSect^H-'^*/ ov Co M£ dismissing this CRLP