Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

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