Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Transcript certificate in State Of Karnataka vs K.Venkatesh on 4 February, 2019Matching Fragments
21. According to prosecution, after taking voice recorder from P.W.7, P.W.2 met accused No.1 in his office on 02.08.2012 and then accused asked him to make a phone call in the evening and when P.W.2 made a phone call at 8.15 pm, accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- and this talk was recorded in the voice recorder. During Pre-trap Mahazar, recordings in voice recorder was transcribed on the paper as per Ex.P.7 and then transmitted to C.D as per M.O.9. Re1cordings at the time of trap in the button camera and voice recorder were transcribed as per Ex.P.8 and transmitted to C.D as per M.O.11. P.W.7 in his cross-examination has admitted that in 19 Spl.C.C.75/2013 respect of these C.D's and transcriptions no certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is obtained. The original voice recorder and button camera in which these recordings were made are not produced before Court.