Chitra Ramkrishna v. Directorate of Enforcement
In the Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
Before Special District Judge Sunena Sharma (PC Act & CBI)
Case Number ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 and B.A. 201/2022
Decided on August 29, 2022

Relevancy of the Case: Bail application in a case involving illegal tapping of NSE employees’ phone calls under the guise of a cyber security contract

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 69B, 72, 72A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 409, 420)
• The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Section 20, 21, 24, 26)
• The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Section 3, 6)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)
• The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 45(1))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The applicant worked at the National Stock Exchange (NSE) in various capacities, such as the Deputy Managing Director, Joint Managing Director, and Managing Director.
• In connivance with other associates, she conspired with iSec Services to illegally tap phone calls and snoop on NSE employees under the guise of a contract for the study of cyber vulnerabilities.
• The applicant used to provide the telephone numbers for tapping to iSec Services. iSec used to prepare transcripts of the recorded conversations and share them with her and other top officials of NSE.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant is a woman. The court must grant her relief by providing the benefit under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that the allegations were severe in nature. The applicant or her associates did not obtain consent from employees before tapping the phone calls.

Opinion of the Bench

• The applicant actively assisted in this entire chain of incidents. She held key positions in NSE. Moreover, she approved the facade contract awarded to iSec.
• It is the court’s discretion to exercise its powers to give benefits to a party under Section 45(1). The applicant cannot claim it as a matter of right.

Final Decision

• The court rejected the bail application.

Aparna Ajay, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2023.