Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. He further submitted that the prosecution had suppressed the vital details with regard to the movements and they have also burked several https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis documents and a fair investigation had not been conducted by the prosecution. Immediately, after coming out on bail, the petitioner has sent two representations dated 21.12.2018 and 10.09.2019 respectively stating that the allegations against him are absolutely false and that a stage managed trap was organized and also he was not present at the relevant period in the office and that he had requested Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department to secure call details and tower locations of the de facto complainant, respondent police and his team and the other accused in this case to disprove the prosecution case. He also submitted that now the trial has commenced and the action taken report on the representations by the Secretary and the documents sought by the petitioner are very much necessary and desirable for arriving at a just decision in this case. He also submitted that the respondent had relied on an audio clipping stated to be the conversation between the de facto complainant and the accused recorded on 05.09.2018 in the digital Sony IC Recorder (ICD - PX 312 SL.No.2654046) which is in the possession of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Though a copy of the audio clipping recorded in a Compact Disk is furnished along with a certification under Section 65-B of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Evidence Act, no Hash Value of the original recording has been shown in the certificate and thereby, there is a possibility of tampering. He further submitted that without the Hash Value, the authenticity of the copy made in the Compact Disk is doubtful and there is a chance that it could have been tampered. Thereby, the petitioner had sought for the production of the Sony IC Recorder (ICD - PX 312 SL.No.2654046) in which the alleged conversation was originally stated to be recorded to compare the Hash Value in the original recording with the copy. The petitioner had also sought for the details relating to the movement of the officials by production of Sentry Relief Register, Visitors' book entry, General Diary, Vehicle Log Book and the driver's Pocket Note in respect of the vehicles used in the trap. He further submitted that since the documents sought by the petitioner are official relevant documents and are available with the authorities and now that the case is ripe for trial, the petitioner had filed the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking for production of those documents.

(c) As far as item 3, Sony IC Recorder (ICD-PX312 SL.2654046) is concerned, the same recorder had been used in several traps and due to shortage of memory (1.85/2 GB), the voice recordings done during the particular trap were copied to a laptop after completion of every recording and thereafter, the same was copied to the compact disk and the compact disk was furnished to the petitioner along with certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. However, the hash value of the recording is not mentioned in the certificate. The respondent has not tampered with the original recordings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and that since the same recorder was also used for subsequent traps, there might be a possibility of over lapping of recordings, however, the respondent has no objection in producing the original Sony IC Recorder before the trial Court concerned and has no objection in sending the same for forensic examination for calculating and comparing the hash value of the Sony IC Recorder, if the same is available in the hard disk.

23. In this case, the Hash Value of the recording has not been given. To rule out tampering, the Hash Value of the copy of the recording should tally with the Hash Value of the original recording and if the petitioner is able to make out the prima facie case for tampering or editing of the conversation, it can be compared with the original. It is to be noted that the Court is reminded of the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Law does not expect the performance of the impossible. When documents are not available with the respondent, the Court cannot expect the production of such documents sought for by the petitioner.

(b) The respondent shall produce the original Sony IC Recorder (ICD-PX312 SL.2654046) before the trial Court along with a memo and after examination of witnesses relating to the audio recording and marking of the compact disk, if the trial Court is of the opinion that there is a suspicion of tampering, then, the Sony IC Recorder (ICD-PX312 SL.2654046) shall be subjected to forensic examination to cross check and compare the hash value found in the original recording found in the Sony IC Recorder with the hash value of the recording in the compact disk;