Legal Researchers

+92-(51)-2362093   info@legal-researchers.com

"We commit & we deliver"

+1 929 666 0091

Menu

Audio Tampering Law PLD 2019 Supreme Court 675

Art. 164—Audio tape or video, proving of-Admissibility in evidence-Requirements for admissibility of an
audio tape or video in evidence before a court of law and the mode and manner of proving the same
before the court stated.
Following are the requirements for admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence before a court of
law and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court:
a) No audio tape or video could be relied upon by a court until the same was proved to be genuine
and not tampered with or doctored.
b) A forensic report prepared by an analyst of the Provincial Forensic Science Agency in respect of
an audio tape or video was per se admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of section 9(3)
of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007.
c) Under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 it laid in the discretion of a court to
allow any evidence becoming available through an audio tape or video to be produced.
d) Even where a court allowed an audio tape or video to be produced in evidence, such audio tape
or video had to be proved in accordance with the law of evidence.
e) Accuracy of the recording must be proved and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial,
had to be produced so as to rule out any possibility of tampering with the record.
f) An audio tape or video sought to be produced in evidence must be the actual record of the
conversation as and when it was made or of the event as and when it took place.
g) The person recording the conversation or event had to be produced.
h) The person recording the conversation or event must produce the audio tape or video himself.
i) The audio tape or video must be played in the court.
j) An audio tape or video produced before a court as evidence ought to be clearly audible or
viewable.
k) The person recording the conversation or event must identify the voice of the person speaking
or the person seen or the voice or person seen may be identified by any other person who
recognized such voice or person.
l) Any other person present at the time of making of the conversation or taking place of the event
may also testify in support of the conversation heard in the audio tape or the event shown in
the video.
m) The voices recorded or the persons shown must be properly identified.
n) The evidence sought to be produced through an audio tape or video had to be relevant to the
controversy and otherwise admissible.
o) Safe custody of the audio tape or video after its preparation till production before the court
must be proved.
p) The transcript of the audio tape or video must have been prepared under independent
supervision and control.

q) The person recording an audio tape or video may be a person whose part of routine duties was
recording of an audio tape or video and he should not be a person who has recorded the audio
tape or video for the purpose of laying a trap to procure evidence.
r) The source of an audio tape or video becoming available had to be disclosed.
s) The date of acquiring the audio tape or video by the person producing it before the court ought
to be disclosed by such person.
t) An audio tape or video produced at a late stage of a judicial proceeding may be looked at with
suspicion.
u) A formal application had to be filed before the court by the person desiring an audio tape or
video to be brought on the record of the case as evidence.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X