https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177807 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. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:12:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177807 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177807