1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION NO.472/2009 Rahul Gopal PETITIONER VS. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Sunip Sen i/b Mr.Tanvir Shaikh for the petitioner Mr.J.P.Kharge ,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST,2009. P.C. . Heard. 2] This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay on 4/5/2009 rejecting the application for discharge filed by the Revision Petitioner. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence on which the case of the accused stands is entirely based on intercepted conversation and the purpose of interception does not fall at all under section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is no evidence against this Petitioner of demand or acceptance of bribe. In support of his submissions he has relied upon ruling K.L.D.Nagasree Vs.Government of India ,MANU/AP/0819/2006 , (Equi.) 2007(1)ALT 473,AIR 2007/AP/102, 2007(1)ALD 553 . 3] The learned A.P.P.for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the Trial Court has rightly passed the order. 2 4] The interception of the telephone of the accused was done after taking due permission from Additional C.S.. Whether the purpose of interception falls under section 5(2)of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or not can be decided only at the time of the trial and when the prosecution is given chance to unfold the entire evidence. Hence no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,Bombay. The Revision Petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)