SAMSONELECTRICALS Vs. HANSRAJ MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT , Hans Raj Miglani, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 97,946/ - against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no money was payable to Hans Raj Miglani. Petitioner claimed to be in possession of a tape recorded conversation in which Hans Raj Miglani had admitted that he had not to receive any money from the petitioner.

(2.) AN application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Judge under Sections 3, 45 and 146 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC praying that Hans Raj Miglani be directed to get recorded his voice on a blank audio cassette so that the petitioner could send the same for an analysis of a voice expert to prove that the tape recorded conversation on which the petitioner was relying contained the voice of the petitioner.

(3.) AS per decision of the Supreme Court reported as : AIR 1975 SC 1788 Z.B. Bukhari v. B.R. Mehra, it is a settled legal position that tape records of speeches are documents as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Thus, cassette or tape recording of the alleged conversation between Hans Raj Miglani and an employee of the petitioner would be a document.