The admissibility of tape recorded conversations is contingent on the identification of the voice, accuracy of the recording, and relevance of the conversation, as per the Indian Evidence Act.

1. The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision as against the order dated 11.09.2007 in I.A.No.4 of 2007 in O.S.No.935 of 2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.4 of 2007, has inter alia observed that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction and this suit is to be determined on the basis of documents and that the revision petitioner /petitioner/defendant has not prayed for a relief of comparing the recorded voice found in the cassette with that of the evidence to be recorded, to be compared by an expert and has held that the application is not maintainable and further there are efficient persons who can speak with the voice of another and in this circumstance, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the voice found in the cassette is that of P.W.3 and therefore, dismissed the application.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.No.4 of 2007 wherein the revision petitioner/defendant has prayed for permission to be given to him to record the sample voice of P.W.3 for the purpose of comparison and that as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has got the power to compare the voice of tape recorder with that of P.W.3 to be recorded before the Court and that the trial Court has not appreciated of the fact that a voice recorded in a tape recorder is admissible in law and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant cites the decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari V. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1788 at page 1795 wherein the Honble supreme Court has observed as follows:

"We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape records of speeches were "documents", as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions:

(a)The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.

(b)Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record.

(c)The subject matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.

These requirements were deduced by the High Court from R. V. Maqusd Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464."

5. He also relies on the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi V. Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi and others 2005 CRI. L.J. 2868 wherein it is held as follows:

"Requiring the accused to lend his voice sample for the limited purpose of identification of his voice as to compare the same with the tape-recorded telephonic conversation, is neither requiring him to impart knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral statements or statements in writing of his personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a Court or to a person holding an enquiry or investigation. Besides, the accused will not be called upon to state on any of the state of facts which will have to be determined by a Court or authority authorised to come to a decision, by testifying to what he has seen or something he has heard, which is capable of being heard and is not hit by the rule excluding hearsay, or giving his opinion, as an expert, in respect of the matters in controversy. A