Full Judgment
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.M. Bhansali for the revision petitioner and Mr. H.S. Balot for the non-petitioner.
2. By the impugned order the trial Court had rejected a prayer to direct the defendant to allow tape-recording his voice for comparison with the other cassette in which according to the plaintiff, the defamatory and abusive language used by the defendant against the plaintiff was recorded. Two objections were raised against the application. One was that a similar application was rejected earlier and a revision application against the order was also rejected. The second objection was that it is not permissible under law to give such a direction. The first objection appears to have been impliedly over-ruled by the trial Court itself because under the earlier order it was stated that the' plaintiff could repeat the submission at a later stage and it was repeated after the closer of the evidence of the parties. The second ground for rejection of the prayer was that it was in dispute as to which was the original cassette. This is clearly a matterial irregularity committed by the trial Court when the plaintiff states that the voice of the defendant is recorded in a particular cassette and for the purpose of comparison of the voice of the defendant she prayed for the defendants's voice being recorded in another cassette for comparison. The question was not whether the cassette. Ex. 4, was the original cassette or not. The entire endeavor was to prove that Ex. 4 was in the voice of the defendant and it was suggested that that could be done by comparing the voice of the defendant recorded in cassette with the Ex. 4 cassette. Such a prayer could not have been rejected on the ground that it is in doubt as to which is the original cassette. In Dial Singh Narain Singh v. Rajapal Jagan Nath AIR 1969 Punj & Har 350 : (1969 Cri. L.J. 1422) a learned Single Judge has held that a contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. The manner and mode of its proof and the use thereof in a trial is a matter of detail and it can be used for the purpose of confronting a witness with his earlier tape-recorded statements. It may also be legitimately used for the purpose of shaking the credit of a witness. For use of an earlier tape-recorded statement, the identification of the taped voices is a crucial matter and indeed such proper identiication is the sine qua non for the use of the earlier tape-recording. Where the voice is denied by the alleged maker thereof, a comparison of the same becomes inevitable and the proper identification of voices must be proved by a competent witness. The recording of the voice of a witness for the purpose of comparison with and identification of his earlier recorded voice can, therefore, be allowed by the Court and such comparison is neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited under any statute.
3. This view appears to me to be correct. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, erred in rejecting out of hand the prayer on irrelevant considerations.
4. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application dated 7-11-1996 filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The trial Court shall call upon the defendant to allow the tape recording of his voice to be taken in the Court and such tape-recorded voice can be compared by the Court to come to a conclusion whether the Ex. 4 cassette is in the voice of the defendant. If the defendant does not submit to tape recording of his voice in the Court to provide a standard recording of the voice, the Court may draw adverse inference against him.
5. There shall be no orders as to costs.