Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. CW.20-K.C.Lakshminarayana, who was examined as PW.9, deposed during the course of his evidence that, on 30-07-2010 CW.1 appeared before him and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.2, on the basis of which, he has registered the FIR as per Ex.P.15. PW.9 further deposed that, he has secured CW.6 and 7 as witnesses by issuing the letter as per Ex.P.16 and conducted the pre trap proceedings in their presence and drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.4. PW.9 further deposed that, the recordings in the voice recorder was transcripted as per Ex.P.13 and recordings were also transmitted into CD and same was seized during the course of pre trap proceedings. PW.9 further deposed that, he instructed CW.1 to meet the accused and hand over the tainted notes to him when demanded by the accused and to give the signal by removing his spectacle. PW.9 further deposed that, thereafter they proceeded towards the office of the accused at K.R.Puram and accused was not found in the office and he called CW.1 and asked him to wait near his hotel. PW.9 further deposed that, they went near the hotel of the complainant and at about 8.05 p.m. accused came near the hotel and there was conversation between the accused and CW.1 and 2. PW.9 further deposed that, when CW.1 made an attempt to hand over the tainted currency notes to the accused, he brought the plastic cover from nearby cloth shop and asked CW.1 to keep the same in the plastic cover. PW.9 further deposed that, after receiving the signal from CW.1, they went to the spot and accused dropped the plastic cover with currency notes on to the ground. PW.9 further deposed that, those currency notes were taken from the ground and they were verified and its denominations and numbers were tallied with the denominations and numbers, which were entered as per Ex.P.3. PW.9 further deposed about the trap proceedings conducted by them at the spot and thereafter they proceeded towards the office of the accused at K.R.Puram and collected the documents as per Ex.P.17. PW.9 further deposed that, thereafter they came back to his office and continued the trap proceedings and recordings in the voice recorder and button camera were displayed in the presence of witnesses and recordings were transmitted into CD and same was seized. PW.9 further deposed that, recordings were also transcripted as per Ex.P.18. PW.9 further deposed that, he has handed over the metal seal, used to seize the materials objects, to CW.7 by obtaining the acknowledgement from him as per Ex.P.12. PW.9 further deposed that, he has drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.5. PW.9 further deposed about he continuing the further investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses and also sent the requisition to the 17th ACMM, Bengaluru to record the statement of CW.1 and 2, under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. PW.9 further deposed that, he has drawn the sketch as per Ex.P.3 and received the chemical analysis report as per Ex.P.24, call details particulars as per Ex.P.25 and submitted final report before competent authority to get the sanction. PW.9 further deposed that, on 25-10-2010 he filed the charge sheet after receiving the sanction order as per Ex.P.1.

41. Before proceeding to consider the admissibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of CD and transcription of the recordings in the voice recorder, let me consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to when the said voice recorder was handed over to the complainant and where the recordings of the conversation was made. If this court draw its attention to the complaint, which is marked as per Ex.P.2, in page 2 of the complaint, complainant has specifically stated that on the date of lodging the complaint i.e. on 30-07-2010, at about 9-00 a.m., he called the accused and enquired him about the hotel license applied by him and accused demanded the bribe amount. Therefore, on the same day, he appeared before the Lokayuktha Police and Lokayuktha Police Inspector has handed over the voice recorder to him and asked him to record the conversation between him and the accused. So, as per the above statement made in Ex.P.2 complaint, on the date of lodging the complaint i.e., on 30-07-2010, complainant has appeared before the Lokayuktha Police and Lokayuktha Police Inspector has handed over the voice recorder to the complainant. The complaint as per Ex.P.2 was lodged on 30-07-2010.

47. Let me proceed with my discussion by accepting that voice recorder was given to CW.1 and accordingly CW.1 met the accused along with voice recorder and recorded the conversation between him and the accused and thereafter handed over the voice recorder to the Lokayuktha Police while lodging the complaint. According to the prosecution, recordings in the voice recorder produced by CW.1 was displayed in the presence of the witnesses and its recordings were transmitted into CD and said CD was also displayed before senior official of the accused, who identified the accused and his voice and those recordings were also transcripted in the presence of CW.2 and 3. The evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard is CD containing the recordings in the voice recorder as MO.6 and the transcription of the recordings as per Ex.P.13.

56. So far as the recordings in the button camera and voice recorder, again the primary evidence was not produced before this court, as neither the button camera nor the voice recorder, in which the conversation recorded, were produced before this court. The prosecution has produced only the CD as M.O.8 and transcription of the recordings made in the said voice recorder and button camera, as Ex.P.18. Whatever the discussion made by me and the reasons given by me in respect of the recordings in the voice recorder produced by the complainant at the time of lodging the complaint, would apply to this also. Again the button camera and voice recorder was not produced before the court and CD and transcription of the recordings were not accompanied by the certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution examined CW.8 as PW.7, before whom those video recordings were displayed, she was not definite that the accused and his voice was in those recordings, because she said that the person in the video recordings was similar to the accused and not said it was the accused. PW.7 also said that she cannot say how many people involved in the conversation recorded in the CD. PW.7 further said that she cannot accurately identify the voice of the accused, since accused was working at K.R.Puram and she was not familiar with his voice. Therefore, this court cannot accept the CD, transcription of the recordings and evidence of PW.7 to hold that the accused was found in those recordings and that he has demanded the bribe amount from the complainant at the time of trap.