VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 163
411
imposed on him under the Constitution and therefore they are not
part of the business of the Government of India and that the Minister
had no right to deal with the appeal which had been preferred to the
President.
The Supreme Court, on appeal by the State, however, took
the view that the question which was raised in the appeal related to
the domain of appointment or dismissal of a Government servant
and falls within the ambit of a purely administrative function of the
President in the case of the Union Government and of the Governor
in the case of a State.
It was also pointed out by the Supreme Court that any
reference to the President in any rule made under the Constitution
must be to the President as the Constitutional head of the Nation
acting with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The disposal
of the appeal by the Minister was therefore legal and proper.
(163)
Evidence — tape-recorded
Tape record cassette evidence is admissible.
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra,
AIR 1975 SC 1788
In an appeal under the Representation of the People Act,
the Supreme Court observed that the tape records of speeches are
‘documents’ as defined in sec. 3 of the Evidence Act which stand on
no different footing than photographs and they are admissible in
evidence on satisfying the following conditions: (a) The voice of the
person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker
of the record or by others who know it. (b) Accuracy of what was
actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and
satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as
to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. (c) The subjectmatter
recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of
relevancy found in the Evidence Act.