WP.Nos.5466 & 5470 of 2020 that the money is to be handed over at Habibulla Road. Thereafter, the first accused was caught red-handedly by the officers of the CBI, Chennai while he was accepting a bribe of Rs.8 lakhs from the fifth accused on 10.01.2015. It is also evident from the above circumstances that in cases of corruption at high places, economic and organised crimes, conspiracies are hatched in the most secretive manners. Therefore, the interception order in the present case was issued by the first respondent herein after being satisfied that the interception was necessary to prevent the offence of corruption. Impact of corruption on public safety cannot be gainsaid in the present times. Therefore, the first respondent passed the order in accordance with the rules with complete application of mind taking into consideration of the circumstances prevailing in the matter after having satisfied himself on the basis of the material placed before him that the circumstances of the case warrant lawful interception. 7. He further submitted that after the order, the second respondent is referring to the call detail records which have been procured from the telephone service provider during the investigation and it does not have any connection with the order of the first respondent herein for interception of the mobile numbers of the petitioners. The telephone calls had http://www.judis.nic.in 9/22