Co-Accused Acquitted On Same Evidence: Madras High Court Discharges UK Resident In CBI Illegal Telephone Exchange Case
The Madras High Court has discharged a U K-based accused from a CBI prosecution relating to an alleged illegal telephone exchange, holding that the evidence against him was inseparable from that against the co-accused, who had already been acquitted in the main trial. The Court observed that compelling the petitioner to face trial on the very same evidence would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Shri Harsha Srinivas Rao and set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which had dismissed his discharge application.
Background
The case arose from a CBI investigation into an alleged illegal international telephone exchange operated during 2000-2001. According to the prosecution, seven accused conspired to bypass the authorised BSNL and VSNL international gateways by routing incoming international voice calls through a broadband connection and converting them into local calls using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Department of Telecommunications.
The prosecution alleged that Rao, arrayed as Accused No.7, acted as a consultant to M/s Nisarga Software Pvt. Ltd. and assisted in procuring and installing broadband infrastructure used in the alleged illegal operation. Since Rao had left for the United Kingdom in 2002 and did not appear before the trial court, the case against him was split up in 2008 while the trial proceeded against the remaining accused.
In the main case, the trial court convicted Accused Nos.1 to 3 only for offences under the Indian Telegraph Act but acquitted them of the charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating under the IPC. It also acquitted Accused Nos.4 to 6, including the company M/s Nisarga Software Pvt. Ltd., of all charges. After returning to India in July 2025, Rao was arrested, granted bail, and thereafter sought discharge from the split-up proceedings.
Petitioner's Contentions
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate A. Aswinkumar argued that the prosecution had failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that Rao was ever employed as a consultant by the company. His name did not figure in the records of the Registrar of Companies or any company documents.
It was further submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish who had actually connected the broadband line with the telephone lines to facilitate the alleged conversion of international calls into local calls. Merely coordinating the installation of broadband equipment or receiving the equipment could not constitute the offences alleged.
The petitioner also contended that since the company and its directors had already been acquitted on the very same evidence, continuation of the split-up case against him alone was legally unsustainable.
CBI's Stand
The CBI opposed the revision petition, contending that Rao was the technical consultant who coordinated installation of the broadband infrastructure and possessed the technical expertise necessary for establishing the illegal telephone exchange. It argued that his prolonged absence from India could not entitle him to seek discharge and that sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed against him.
Court's Observations
After examining the evidence recorded in the main trial, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to produce any material establishing that Rao was employed as a consultant by M/s Nisarga Software Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that his name did not appear in the records maintained by the Registrar of Companies or any other company documents.
The Court further observed that the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the alleged installation report and delivery documents relating to the broadband connection. Even assuming that the petitioner had signed the installation report, that by itself did not establish his involvement in the alleged offence.
The Court observed:
"Fixing of broadband in a premises is not an offence."
The Court further held:
"Merely being a contact person, who has some technical knowledge, would not amount to criminality."
Justice Kumar also found significant gaps in the prosecution case. The investigation had not produced any observation mahazar, rough sketch or seized any wiring to establish how the broadband connection at one premises had been linked to the telephone lines at another premises. There was also no evidence showing that the petitioner had installed such wiring or played any role in converting international calls into local calls.
The Court further noted that the company and its directors had already been acquitted in the main trial and that the prosecution had not challenged those acquittals. Since the evidence against the petitioner was identical to the evidence already considered in the main case, the Court held that the split-up proceedings could not be treated differently.
Relying on Tamilmaran v. State and the Supreme Court's decision in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that where the evidence against the absconding accused and the co-accused is inseparable and indivisible, the findings recorded in the main trial cannot be ignored while deciding the split-up case.
Holding that no case was made out against the petitioner on the uncontroverted materials placed by the prosecution, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would only amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it set aside the trial court's order and discharged the petitioner from the case.
Case: Shri Harsha Srinivas Rao v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai
Case No.: Crl.R.C. No.2439 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: A. Aswinkumar, AMS LEGAL
Counsel for Respondent: K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases