Tape-recordings are admissible in evidence under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided their accuracy and the proper identification of the voices recorded can be proved.

1. An interesting question of law regarding the mode of proof and the admissibility of a tape-recording arises is these two connected petitions which will be disposed of by this order.

2. The facts giving rise to the petitions are that during the trial of the respondent Raj Pal and others on a charge under Sections 324, 325, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, two witnesses Ujagar Singh and Ham Lal were examined on behalf of the prosecution. It was alleged on behalf of the defence that the voices of both these witnesses had been earlier tape-recorded and the same were played in the Court arid put to the witnesses when they gave their evidence. Both the witnesses, however, denied that the voices were theirs. Rattan Chand and Raj Pal, respondents, on the 15th of January, 1968, then moved two applications in the Court for the recording of the voices of the witnesses so that it could be used for the purpose of comparison. Roth these applications were allowed in a short order by R.D. Singla, a Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the same was in the interest of justice on 15th January, 1968. The present petitioner Dial Singh who is the complainant in the said case then challenged the orders granting the application before the Court of Session at Amritsar, but his revisions were declined by the orders of Shri J.S. Chatha dated the 25th of June, 1968, on identical grounds. The petitioner now challenges the orders of the Courts below by way of revision.

3. Mr. V.K. Ranade, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that there exists no express provision of law in the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of a tape-recording and he, therefore, argues that they are inadmissible and cannot be brought on the record. In the alternative it has been argued that in the statute there exists no provision for the comparison of two tape-recorded voices and in any case the trial Court cannot embark upon such a comparison.

4. It is too late in the day to challenge the admissibility of a conversation which has been tape-recorded earlier if the same is relevant. As early as 1956, Bhandari C.J. in Rup Chand V/s. Mahabir Parshad, AIR 1956 Punj 173 had categorically laid down that such a tape-recording was clearly admissible. The learned Chief Justice had relied on a number of American and English cases in support of his decision. In Partap Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied heavily on the tape-recording which had been put on the record by the petitioner. In fact the admissibility of the same was considered self-evident. Their Lordships expressly adverted to the admissibility and the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded talk which had been produced as part of the supporting evidence produced by Dr. Partap Singh, the petitioner in that case. A clear and unequivocal enunciation of the law is made, however, by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rex V/s. Maqsud Ali and Ashiq Hussain, 1965 2 AllER 461 in the following terms :-

"We think that the time has come when this Court should state its views of the law on a matter which is likely to be increasingly raised as time passes. For many years now photographs have been admissible in evidence on proof that they are relevant to the issues involved in the case and that the prints as seen represent situations that have been reproduced by means of mechanical and chemical devices. Evidence of things seen through telescopes or binoculars which otherwise could not be picked up by the naked eye have been admitted, and now there are devices for picking up, transmitting, and recording, conversations. We can see no difference in principle between a tape recording and a photograph. In saying this we must not be taken as saying that such recordings are admissible whatever the circumstances, but it does appear to this Court wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new d