Audio Recording is a technology based way of recording the conversation. Using this one can easily have a copy of original conversation between them. Now the question here arises whether this type of recording must be permitted in the court premise or not? The recording can be played to confirm what was said in the conversation and can be the strong evidence before the court. It is also helpful in certain cases where person secretly wants to sue another person (R K Anand’s case), or has no other medium to prove the situation like in case if a person wants to sue a minister or government official for asking bribe then he can record the conversation between him and other party with proof. Now the question arises whether this type of recording violates the wiretapping act or whether it is legally correct? Where you do your recording, and what you record, will largely dictate what legal limitations apply to your recording activities and the intention you have regarding recording all these activities. Taking care of all the pros and cons of the audio recording, it is being concluded (with reference to Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh2 ) that:
The voice of the speaker must be duly identified and audible. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record.
Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. The objections to the recording will always occur in the case of recording but we can’t totally say no to recording because in corruption like cases as people will unable to prove. So, recording should be permitted in the court but with certain more T&C, in addition to SC decision in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh case, which are listed as follows:
Permission must be taken from the court for recording activities so that wiretapping act is not violated and in exceptional cases where permission cannot be taken, court must review and solicit the intension of the person.
In case of phone call recordings, court must cross-check the date, time and time period of recording with the bills of both the numbers such that fraud must not be there.
Recording must be inspected by some official professional and all the disturbance, gaps and noise must be identified and the certificate for the same must be produced to the court. Hence recording must be permitted with these terms and conditions because the use of tape recorded conversation was not confined to purpose of corroboration and contradiction only, but when duly proved by satisfactory evidence of what was found recorded and of absence of tampering, “it could subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act, be used as substantive evidence”.
