Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved