Tape-recorded conversation admissible as real evidence; illegality in obtaining it did not bar proof of illegal gratification.

A contemporaneous tape-recorded telephone conversation was held admissible as real evidence because its relevance, identification of voices, accuracy and absence of tampering were established; the fact that police assisted in arranging the recording did not by itself render it inadmissible, and no Article 20(3) or Article 21 violation was found. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply because the conversation was between private persons and was not a statement made to police during investigation. The surrounding evidence, including repeated demands and conduct linked to official acts, proved the attempt to obtain illegal gratification, and no ground was found to interfere with the custodial sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the tape-recorded telephonic conversation between the witness and the appellant was admissible in evidence despite the manner in which it was obtained; (ii) whether the conversation was hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as having been recorded during investigation; (iii) whether the evidence established the offence and attempt to obtain illegal gratification; and (iv) whether the sentence of imprisonment called for interference.

Issue (i): whether the tape-recorded telephonic conversation between the witness and the appellant was admissible in evidence despite the manner in which it was obtained.

Analysis: A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation was treated as admissible real evidence, provided the conversation was relevant, the voices were identified, and the record was shown to be accurate and untampered. The conversation was held to be relevant and corroborative of the oral testimony. The mere fact that the recording arrangement was made with police assistance did not make the evidence inadmissible. The Court also held that even evidence obtained by improper or unlawful means is not on that account excluded if it is otherwise relevant and genuine. No infringement of Article 20(3) was found because the appellant was not compelled to make any statement, and no violation of Article 21 was established on the facts.

Conclusion: The tape-recorded conversation was admissible in evidence and its reception was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the conversation was hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as having been recorded during investigation.

Analysis: Section 162 applies to statements made to a police officer in the course of investigation. The conversation in question was between private persons on the telephone and was not a statement made to the police officer. The police merely arranged to hear and record the conversation; that did not convert it into a statement recorded under section 161 or 162. On that footing, the statutory bar was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The conversation was not barred by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (iii): whether the evidence established the offence and attempt to obtain illegal gratification.

Analysis: The evidence of repeated demands, reduction and escalation of the amount, and the surrounding conduct was accepted as proving the charge. The facts found showed a demand linked with the performance of official acts and a continuing attempt to secure payment through intermediaries. The Court rejected the contention that the facts amounted merely to negotiation without an offence.

Conclusion: The appellant's guilt and attempt to obtain illegal gratification were proved.

Issue (iv): whether the sentence of imprisonment called for interference.

Analysis: The Court considered the gravity of the offence, the appellant's position, and the circumstances urged for leniency, including payment of fine and alleged ill health. It found no adequate ground to substitute or reduce the custodial sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and custodial sentence were maintained, and the appellant's challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous and relevant tape-recorded conversation is admissible if its genuineness and accuracy are proved, and evidence does not become inadmissible merely because it was obtained by improper or unlawful means, unless exclusion is required by a specific rule or unfairness on the facts.

---