Phone tapping case: High court grants bail to Chitra Ramakrishna

Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that the NSE is not a public authority, and as such, the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be made applicable to Ramakrishna, who is not a “public servant” under the Act. The court also said that the Enforcement Directorate had failed to show how Ramakrishna got any personal gain or benefit.

“No evidence has been placed on record to prove corruption or misuse of position by the applicant (Ramakrishna). The consideration received by M/s ISEC is as per an agreement entered into with NSE and work orders issued with the approval of Managing Director Ravi Narayan. Thus, the contents of section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act are not made against him. Therefore, the offense scheduled against him under Section 13 PC Act is not made out,” Justice Singh said in the 38-page judgement.

The court noted that there is no allegation that Ramakrishna has received or received any property or proceeds of crime. The court said, “Moreover, no such allegation or evidence has been produced before me to show that Ramakrishna concealed, retained, used, presented any proceeds of crime as unblemished property or claimed.”

According to the ED, top officials of NSE, named in the charge sheet, caused monetary loss to NSE by allowing them to receive money from illegal activity carried out in the guise of ISEC, a company formed by former Mumbai Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey. of a valid contract of ‘Cyber ​​Vulnerability Study’.

The agency has claimed that it was only with the active aid and help of Ramakrishna, Ravi Narayan (Managing Director) and other top officials of NSE that iSec was able to make so much money 4.54 crore and give it the color of untainted money by showing it was earned through a legitimate source, the ED said.

The agency had in July registered a case against Pandey and former NSE chiefs for allegedly tapping phones of employees between 2009 and 2017.

Pandey’s company, iSec Services, formed in 2001, was one of the many IT firms that conducted security audits at the NSE between 2010 and 2015, when the co-location scam allegedly took place. The agencies have found that the interception was done without the consent of the employees.

Ramakrishna was earlier granted default bail in the co-location scam probed by the CBI in September 2022 after the High Court pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their “piecemeal” investigation and filing of an “incomplete” chargesheet. Was reprimanded.

He was not arrested by the ED in the money laundering case arising out of the co-location scam, however, continued to be in jail in the illegal interception case.

In December, a Delhi court granted bail to Ramakrishna in an illegal interception case being probed by the CBI, even as she remained in jail in a money laundering case being probed by the ED.

By Thursday’s verdict, Justice Jasmeet Singh granted him bail in the pending ED case arising out of the illegal interception, observing that “there was no complaint from the NSE or any employee of the NSE that Ramakrishna defrauded the NSE or its employees”.

“Notably, no victim has been identified by the ED as having suffered wrongful loss due to deception or fraud by Ramakrishna. There is no mention of the names of the persons defrauded, except for a vague and nonsensical allegation that the customers were defrauded. Thus, the content of Section 420 IPC is not made out in the present case,” the court said.

The judge said that there is no allegation that he cheated or fraudulently induced NSE to give any property to any person.

“Chitra Ramakrishna was at all times acting on behalf of NSE and representing NSE in her capacity as DMD/JMD/MD of NSE. He performed his duties as DMD/JMD/MD of NSE. Therefore, it is wrong to allege that he fraudulently induced NSE to enter into an agreement with M/s ISEC and make payment to M/s ISEC,” the court said in the 38-page judgement.

With regard to criminal conspiracy (Section 120B of the IPC), the court held that the elements of the offense are not established as the criminal intent, i.e. agreement to commit an illegal act, has not been made.

“As per the documents placed before me, it is seen that NSE was recording interactions through other vendors since 1997, and transactions with ISEC took place from 2009 to 2017. The applicant was DMD of NSE till 2010 and JMD till 2013 and MD. 2016. As the call recording was done by NSE before the involvement of ISEC, it is wrong to allege that the applicant conspired with ISEC to illegally tap and record the calls. Thus, in the present case The ingredients of Section 120B IPC have not been created”, the court said.

The court noted that the elements of offense under Section 72 of the Information Technology (IT) Act are not made out in the present case as neither Ramakrishna nor NSE was conferred any right under the said Act.

“Moreover, Ramakrishna or NSE was not acting in pursuance of the powers conferred on it under the IT Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder,” the court said.