Recorded phone conversations may be admissible, but voice comparison requires lawful proof and marking of the electronic record.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a recorded mobile-phone conversation may be treated as relevant evidence, and evidence is not excluded merely because it was allegedly obtained illegally if it is otherwise admissible. The accused cannot be compelled to enter the witness box, as that privilege rests with the accused under Section 315 CrPC. However, voice comparison by expert examination cannot be sought until the compact disc is first proved and marked through a witness in accordance with law. The accused was therefore given liberty to renew the request after lawful exhibition of the electronic record, in aid of fair-trial rights under Article 21.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to have the recorded mobile-phone conversation received in evidence and, after its marking, to seek voice comparison by expert examination in defence of a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The recorded conversation was treated as potentially relevant material evidence, and illegally collected evidence was held not to be excluded merely on that ground if it is otherwise admissible and relevant. The Court also noted that the accused cannot be compelled to enter the witness box, since that privilege under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 rests with the accused. At the same time, the prayer for voice comparison could not be granted at that stage because the compact disc had first to be proved and marked through a witness in accordance with law. The Court therefore declined to sustain the Magistrate's reasons for outright rejection, but also found that the application was premature until the electronic record was lawfully exhibited. The accused was granted liberty to renew the request after marking the compact disc, and the procedure was linked to the accused's fair-trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The revision was not allowed in full, but the accused obtained liberty to file a fresh application for collection and comparison of voice samples after the compact disc is marked in accordance with law.

---