TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conviction under S. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. His wife Rukhanbai was the owner of the two house properties in 'F' ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.. The buildings were in a ruinous condition and she was served with notices under S. 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act requiring her to repair and secure them. The notices were not complied with and prosecutions under S. 471 of the Act were started against her in the Presidency magistrate's court. The summonses issued to her were served by affixation and on her failure to appear in court a bailable warrant for her arrest was issued. One Munir Ahmed Shaikh, a notice clerk attached to 'F' ward building department of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofa in the outer room of Shaikh's residence he set up a microphone which was connected to a tape recorder in the inner room The microphone was concealed behind books. Mahajan, a radio mechanic and other members of his party remained in the inner room. Shaikh stayed in the outer room. The outer room and the person of Shaikh were searched and no cash was found. At the appointed hour, the appellant came to Shaikh's residence and was received by Shaikh in the Outer room. Shaikh and the appellant had an intimate conversation. The appellant offered :a bribe to Shaikh, produced ten currency notes of ₹ 10 each and gave them to Shaikh. When Shaikh gave the pre-arranged signal Salim pan lao , Mahajan and other members of his party ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for three months on each count. The High Court decline to recommend class 1 to the appellant. Subject to this modification of the sentence, the appeal to the High Court was dismissed. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. With regard to the incident of July 18, 1960 the High Court was not inclined to accept the evidence of Shaikh without independent corroboration. The High Court found that Shaikh was substantially corroborated by Naik who had played the role of a detective. Mr. Mistry argued that Naik was an accomplice and his evidence should not be accepted without corroboration. It is not right to say that Naik was an accomplice. He did not provoke or participate in any crime. The defence counsel conceded in the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Parshad and another(A.I.R. 1956 Punj. 173.), a tape record of a former statement of a witness was admitted in evidence to shake the credit of the witness under s. 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act. The case was followed in Manindra Nath v. Biswanath Kundu(67 C.W.N. 191.. In S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab([1964] 4 S.C.R. 733.), the tape record of a conversation was admitted in evidence, to corroborate the evidence of witnesses who had stated that such a conversation had taken place. In R. v. Maqsud Ali([1965] 2 All E.R. 464.) a tape record of a conversation was admitted in evidence, though the only witness who overheard it was not conversant with the language and could not make out what was said. If a statement is relevant, an accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 19, 1960. The High Court rejected the appellant's explanations. Mr. Mistry was right in saying that the High Court could-not accept the inculpatory ,part and reject the exculpatory part of the appellant's answers 2,1.5 72 5 under S. 342. But there was other evidence showing that the tape recording 'was not tampered with. The fact that the defence did not suggest any tampering lends assurance to the credibility of the other evidence. The courts below rightly held that the tape recorder faithfully recorded and reproduced the actual conversation. The appellant had walked into a pre-arranged trap. Mahajan and other police officers had hidden themselves in the inner room. Shaikh knew that the police officers were recording the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took part. Each spoke to the other but neither made a statement to a police officer. The case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. The State of Bombay([1955] S.C.R.903,922-23.) shows that where identification parades are directed and supervised by police, officers and held in their presence and the panch witnesses take a minor part in the matter, the statements of the identifiers may be regarded as statements to the police officers. In the present case, the police officers set the stage for the drama in which the actors were Shaikh and the appellant. The officers hid themselves in the inner room and took no part in the drama. Neither of them can be regarded as having made a statement to a police officer as contemplated by S. 162. Counsel cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
