The main legal point established is the admissibility of tape records as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, along with the requirement to examine their authenticity and follow specific guidelines laid down by previous judgments.

The writ petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.210/02, the suit instituted for realization of amounts as per cheque issued has sought to quash the order of the Munsiff declining his request to have the magnetic tape that he has produced, played in the open court. The conversations he had with the plaintiff on the alleged date of the transaction involving the handing over of the disputed cheque is fully recorded in the cassette, he claims. The suit based on a loan transaction is contested by the defendant alleging that the cheque happened to be transmitted on account of the deception and subterfuge perpetrated by the plaintiff to secure job as Conductor in the KSRTC for the son of the defendant. The plaintiff had made him believe that he has got close contacts at the Cabinet level and that only on payment of Rs.1,75,000, the assignment would materialize. The defendant paid Rs.1,25,000 in cash and for the balance, a cheque for Rs.50,000 was issued. Later, the defendant realised that his son was selected purely on merit and not on account of any intervention by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant instructed his bank to stop payment on the particular cheque. The defendant's son had tape recorded the conversations and discussions made in between the plaintiff and the defendant on the relevant day. It is mentioned in the writ petition that the tape and the transcription were marked as Exts.B-11 and B-11(a). Before the case was posted for defendant's son's evidence, I.A.1184/03 was filed for playing the tape in the court for the purpose of identification of the voice of the person whose voice it is professed to be and for establishing the authenticity and correctness of the recording. According to the defendant/writ petitioner, the tape is a vital evidence on his side as it contains a blow by blow account of what transpired on the occasion. The above I.A. was dismissed on the ground that the cassette was produced only after the closing of the evidence of the petitioner and also as the same is not seen kept in proper custody and that the copy of the transcript was not deposited in the official record room. It is the above order that is sought to be set aside.

2. So far as the law as to the admissibility of the tape record is concerned, the same is no longer a grey area. The courts have permitted the same very much prior to the amendment of the Indian Evidence Act by the Information Technology Act 2000, enlarging the definition of” Evidence" in Section 3 as including electronic records. Really, the courts can no longer remain confined to the conventional parameters of 'Evidence' amidst the ground-breaking advances in science and technology. The courts in India have admitted tape records as a relevant item of evidence as early as the reported decision in Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad AIR 1956 Punjab 173. The position for quite long, is that tape record is treated as a "Document" coming under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3 Fazal Ali, J. for the majority laid down specific guidelines regarding the admissibility of a tape recorded statement, fine tuning the process as follows:

(1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.

(2) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.

(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the, said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.

(4) The statement must be relevan