CIVIL REVISION NO.6547 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 12, 2008 Karam Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Amar Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery on the basis of a pronote. While the evidence was being recorded, defendant-petitioner wanted to confront the witnesses, Raghbir Chand and Darshan Lal, with their alleged statements recorded on Audio Recorder. Petitioner claims that both the tapes are in his possession in original and he wants to confront both the witnesses with their recorded statements, which according to the petitioner is necessary to arrive at the truth in the matter in issue. The petitioner moved an application in this regard before CIVIL REVISION NO.6547 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: the Trial Court, which is declined on the ground that there is no need to confront the witnesses with the statements as the suit is on the basis of a pronote and the statements of the witnesses recorded on the Audio Tape would not be relevant to the issues involved. It is further observed that the petitioner would have opportunity to produce his evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff. It is noticed that the Audio recorder was played and when put to the witness, Raghbir Chand, PW2 had flatly refused to recognize his voice and stated that the Audio tape did not contain his voice. The said order declining the prayer of the petitioner is now impugned through the present revision petition by the petitioner. Basically, the petitioner is to confront the witnesses with their recorded statements, which are to be taken as previous statements. Thus, the petitioner wants to test the veracity of the witnesses by confronting him with their previous statements. No doubt, the statements of the witnesses if recorded on audio can take the shape of previous statements and thus, may be open to be utilised for the purposes of contradictions. This is permissible under the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Section regulates the cross-examination of a witness as to his previous statement in writing. The procedure of confronting a witness is also prescribed under the said Section. A witness may be cross- examined as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing. The statement of witness if available on audio recording at best can be termed as a statement of the witness which is reduced into writing but not signed by him. For permitting the CIVIL REVISION NO.6547 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: cross-examination in regard to such statements, it has to be shown to be relevant to the issues in question. The witness then can be cross-examined in regard to such a statement without such writing being shown to him or being proved. The Section further provides that if it intended to contradict him by such writing, his attention must before the writing can be proved to be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. To contract a witness, the previous statement is required to be proved. The method and manner as adopted by the petitioner would not be covered by the parameters of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. To entitle the petitioner to confront the witnesses with their previous statements recorded on audio, it is required to be proved and established first that the audio recording contains the voices of the statements of the witnesses concerned. This would be apart from satisfying the other tests in regard to accuracy of recording and its preservation for this evidence to be relevant and admissible. Admissibility of a tape recorded statement depends upon accuracy of the recorded statement which is to be duly proved. Party has to rule out the possibility of its being tampered and also has to satisfy that the cassette was carefully sealed and kept in custody. These requirements are essential for admissibility of the tape recorded statement. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of K.S.Mohan Vs. Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Madras 59 would not be relevant for determining the question involved in this case. As per this judgment, the Court was dealing with the admissibility of the tape-recorded statement and was not concerned CIVIL REVISION NO.6547 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: with confronting the witness with the statement recorded on tape. Once the witness has denied his voice on the tape recorded statement, no further action can be permitted, unless that tape recorded statement is brought on record as relevant evidence after satisfying the Court in regard to its admissibility on the basis of tests as afore-mentioned. Apparently, the relevancy of the statements of the witnesses has not been established. It may also need a mention here that previous statement of a witness, when is used for the purpose of contradiction, then that part of the statement can not be used as a substantive evidence but is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the worth of a witness on the ground that the witness has made different statement at different times. Though the Court has not considered the entire issue in the background of provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the impugned order still may not require any interference, when tested in the light of above-noted legal position. The petitioner apparently has not followed or adopted a proper procedure for confronting a witness with his previous statement for which the method as laid down in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be followed. He has not been able to prove the previous statement to enable him to contradict the witness. The impugned order as such, would not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. May 12 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE