No Voice Sample, No S.65B Certificate

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rajani Dubey of the Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026), acquitted two public servants convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, as the recorded conversations were inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate and voice sample authentication. 

What was the Background of Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026) Case? 

• The complainant's wife's salary had been withheld for six months, following which appellant No.2 allegedly asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000 as illegal gratification on behalf of appellant No.1 for release of the salary. 
• On instructions of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the complainant recorded conversations with the accused, and during a trap conducted on 12.10.2010, tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant No.1. 
• The Investigating Officer admitted that no voice samples of either the accused or the complainant had been obtained, and prosecution witnesses admitted that the recorded conversation was unclear since multiple persons' voices were audible. 
• The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide judgment dated 08.09.2017, and challenged the conviction before the High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On absence of Section 65-B certificate: The Court observed that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63(4)(c) of BSA) had been produced in respect of the electronic record, rendering the voice recording inadmissible. 
• On absence of voice sample and FSL report: The Court held that in the absence of any voice sample or FSL report, the recorded conversation could not be relied upon to establish demand of illegal gratification. 
• On identification and reliability of the recording: The Court noted that the voice recordings were identified solely on the complainant's version, another person allegedly involved in the conversation had neither been cited nor examined, and the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out since the recorder remained with the complainant for several days before seizure. 
• On the Delhi High Court precedent: The Court referred to Romesh Sharma v. State (Delhi High Court), which discussed the conditions governing admissibility of tape-recorded conversations, including proper identification of the speaker's voice, proof of accuracy, and exclusion of tampering. 
• On proof of demand: Relying on settled precedents, the Court reiterated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction. 

What is Section 63(4)(c) of BSA? 

Certificate Requirement for Electronic Records: 

• Where a statement is sought to be given in evidence under Section 63 (electronic records as evidence), a certificate must accompany the electronic record at each instance it is submitted for admission. 
• The certificate must identify the electronic record and describe the manner in which it was produced. 
• It must give particulars of the device involved in producing the record, sufficient to show that it was produced by a computer or communication device as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 63(3). 
• It must deal with the conditions mentioned in Section 63(2), and must be signed by a person in charge of the computer/communication device or the management of the relevant activities, along with an expert, where appropriate. 
• For this purpose, it is sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the certificate, in the form specified in the Schedule to the Act.