Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

JM "43. It has long been held that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means by which the evidence has been obtained, though a person taking recourse to illegality may be accountable under the law. In Karma V.R. 1955 All E.R. 326 PC, it was held that if evidence is relevant the Court is not concerned by the method by which it was obtained or with the question whether that method was tortuous but excusable. This principle of law propounded by the Privy Council was followed by the Supreme Court in Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla . It was held that the fact that a document was procured by improper or even illegal means will not be a bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. In the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement , it was held that illegality does not vitiate evidence collected during search. Similar view was expressed in the case of Pooran Mal (supra). In my opinion, evidence collected during the search can be utilised against the assessee even if the search is illegal. It does not mean that such evidence collected during legal search cannot be utilised against the assessee. We are here concerned with the evidence which was collected during the properly authorised search operation conducted in a smooth manner. The findings of learned AM at para 19.4 are pertinent. I agree with the same. It cannot be said that the statements were taken under threat of intimidation or under coercion. There is no presumption of illegality or wrong-doing when an authority is exercising its statutory functions. It has to be proved, if there has been any. No such proof came forth except bare assertions. In these circumstances, acceptability of statements recorded under Section 132(4) cannot be questioned. Since the statements are relevant and the genuineness is proved, I do not think there is any bar as to its admissibility."