Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

Ashok and Ors. v. State - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Aug 2015)

Delay in formal confirmation does not result in crucial evidence being disregarded

MANU/DE/2313/2015

Criminal

Where the trial court had excluded casette tapes of voice recordings of kidnappers for not having been authorised by the appropriate authority, the High Court found otherwise. It noted that the investigation of kidnapping was an 'emergent' case and the tapes were authorised by the appropriate authority. Even if authorisation was granted later, it only provided legitimacy to the tapes. The Court reiterated the settled position of the law that even illegally obtained evidence may be admissible.

Relevant : Savita alias Babbal vs. State of Delhi MANU/DE/2286/2011 R.M. Malkani V. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0204/1972 Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) MANU/SC/0055/1973

Tags : CRIMINAL   PHONE TAP   AUTHORISATION   DELAY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved