Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

42. One more evidence, which the prosecution relied upon to prove the alleged demand of bribe amount, before lodging the complaint, is the recordings made in the voice recorder by the complainant. The complainant has produced the voice recorder, which contain the recording made by him, along with the complaint, before the Lokayuktha Police. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW.6, recordings in the voice recordedr was transmitted to a CD and said CD was displayed in the presence of CW.3 and 4 and its transcription were made as per Ex.P.5. The Investigating Officer has not produced the voice recorder, in which the alleged recordings were made. The documents produced before this court in the form of CD and in the form of transcription of the recordings are only the secondary evidence. The primary evidence is the voice recorder, in which recordings were made and same has not been produced before this court.

50. Regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the accused at the time of trap, another evidence relied upon by the accused is recording made in the button camera. Even in respect of the recording in the button camera, only the CD and transcription of the recordings were produced before this court and primary evidence has not been produced before the court. The secondary evidence produced before this court is not accompanied by the certificate under Sec.65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of the above said reasons and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anwar V/s P.K.Basheer's case, this court can not consider those CD and transcription of the recordings. Thereby, I have to say that there is no evidence to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused at the time of trap. Therefore, I have to say that prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the accused.