Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Rajesh Gupta VS State Through Central Bureau of Investigation...

Checking relevance for Ram Singh VS Col. Ram Singh...

Checking relevance for Rajendra Sail VS M. P. High Court Bar Association...

Checking relevance for Ila Vipin Pandya VS Smita Ambalal Patel...

Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Ashok Kumar Kashyap...

Checking relevance for FIROZ IQBAL KHAN VS UNION OF INDIA...

Checking relevance for Swapnil Tripathi VS Supreme Court of India...

Checking relevance for S. K. SAINI VS C. B. I. ...

Checking relevance for Rajendra Sail VS Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association...

Checking relevance for Hareram Kaurav VS State of Madhya Pradesh...

Hareram Kaurav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 314 : The legal document confirms that a plaintiff (or complainant) can prepare a transcript of a recording himself. Specifically, Inspector Chand Singh Bamaniya (P.W-8) prepared the transcript (Ex.P-16) of the so-called tape-recorded conversation after playing the cassette in the presence of the complainant, D.S.P. Shankarlal Dharse, and other witnesses. The complainant (P.W-2) signed the transcript, indicating his acknowledgment of its existence, though he did not confirm its accuracy. The court did not question the complainant''''s right to prepare or sign the transcript, but rather focused on whether the recording was authentic, intelligible, and properly authenticated. The document thus establishes that a party (in this case, the complainant) may prepare a transcript of a recording, but the admissibility of such a transcript depends on its authenticity, clarity, and corroboration—particularly whether the voice is identifiable and the recording is reliable.Checking relevance for Nikhil Vinayak Narule Vs State Of Maharashtra...

Nikhil Vinayak Narule Vs State Of Maharashtra - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 348 : The court held that the accused have the right to access a transcript of the victim''''s Audio/Video Recorded Statement to ensure a fair trial and effective defense. The prosecution must provide a clone copy of electronic records, including transcripts, to enable the accused to confront the witness and effectively present their defense. This right is grounded in the fundamental right to a fair trial under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principle of confrontation of witnesses.Checking relevance for Rajkumar Agarwal S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Agarwal VS State Of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for Vishal Chand Jain vs Central Bureau of Investigation...

Checking relevance for K. M. Mani: Joseph Thomas VS P. J. Antony...

K. M. Mani: Joseph Thomas VS P. J. Antony - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 254 : The legal document establishes that an election petitioner may be required to produce a contemporaneous record of a speech—such as a transcript—when allegations concern a candidate obtaining assistance from a police officer to address a meeting on the eve of an election. The court states that where possible, a transcript of the speech should be made available to the court, but if that is not feasible, it would be reasonable and fair to expect the petitioner to produce a contemporaneous record of the points made in the speech or at least its substance. This precedent from K.M. Mani v. P.J. Antony, AIR 1979 SC 234, supports the principle that a party may prepare a record of a recording (i.e., a transcript) themselves to substantiate allegations, particularly when the original transcript is unavailable. Therefore, the plaintiff can prepare a transcript of a recording by himself under appropriate circumstances, especially when a contemporaneous record is necessary to support an allegation in an election petition.Checking relevance for Gramophone Company Of India LTD. VS Collector Of Customs, Calcutta...

Checking relevance for Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari VS Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra...

Checking relevance for Hoshiar Singh VS Gurbachan Singh...

Checking relevance for State Of T. N. VS ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTES...

Checking relevance for State of Kerala VS Kandath Distilleries...

• Transcript as Evidence - Generally, transcripts of conversations or recordings can be admitted as evidence if proper legal procedures are followed, including the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1963. Without such certification, transcripts may not be admissible Pratibha Pandey VS Shaily Tenison Charlse - Rajasthan, Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, SUMATBHAI KAJUBHAI MOHANIYA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi.

• Legal Requirements for Admission - The admissibility of transcripts depends on compliance with evidentiary laws. For instance, a certificate under Section 65B is often necessary to establish authenticity for electronic records like audio/video transcripts Pratibha Pandey VS Shaily Tenison Charlse - Rajasthan, 01100069517, SUMATBHAI KAJUBHAI MOHANIYA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi.

• Exhibition and De-exhibition - Courts have held that once a document (including transcripts) is admitted or exhibited, it cannot be de-exhibited unless there is a procedural or legal defect. Objections regarding mode of admissibility must be raised prior to exhibition; otherwise, subsequent objections are generally barred Balram Sareen VS Rajesh Bhalla - Punjab and Haryana.

• Authenticity and Verification - Transcripts, especially of audio/video recordings, can be verified through comparison with voice recordings or other evidence. Courts may direct verification by officials to confirm the accuracy of transcripts against original recordings SUBHASH LACHHMANNA ANMULWAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Bombay.

• Limitations and Procedural Aspects - The submission of transcripts or recordings without prior court permission or proper certification may be deemed impermissible. Orders dismissing or rejecting such evidence are upheld if procedural requirements are not met Pratibha Pandey VS Shaily Tenison Charlse - Rajasthan, Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, Chandreshbhai Dhanrajbhai Jethani VS Mihirbhai Bhikhabhai Virani - Gujarat.

Analysis and Conclusion:Transcripts of conversations, recordings, or videos can be admitted as evidence in courts, provided they are properly authenticated, usually through a Section 65B certificate for electronic records. The courts emphasize adherence to procedural rules, including timely objections and proper certification. Once exhibited, transcripts generally cannot be de-exhibited unless procedural flaws are identified. Verification procedures, such as voice comparison, are sometimes ordered to establish authenticity. Overall, transcripts are admissible but subject to strict legal and procedural compliance Pratibha Pandey VS Shaily Tenison Charlse - Rajasthan, Balram Sareen VS Rajesh Bhalla - Punjab and Haryana, Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, SUMATBHAI KAJUBHAI MOHANIYA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi, BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi.

References:- Pratibha Pandey VS Shaily Tenison Charlse - Rajasthan- Balram Sareen VS Rajesh Bhalla - Punjab and Haryana- Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi- SUMATBHAI KAJUBHAI MOHANIYA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat- E. Jean Carroll vs Donald J. Trump - 2024 Supreme(US)(ca2) 2 - 2024 Supreme(US)(ca2) 2- BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs SUMAN JAIN - Delhi- INDHEL00000061023