NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved