Madras HC Allows Forensic Examination Of Video In Corruption Case, Says Apprehension That Content May Be Altered No Ground To Refuse Analysis

“The apprehension that the contents may have been altered is not a justification for refusing forensic examination. On the contrary, such concerns reinforce the need for expert analysis. A determination as to whether the files were edited or manipulated can only be reached by a competent forensic authority, not through assumptions or oral statements by lay witnesses,” the court said.

Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the issue of whether compelling voice samples would be violative of the fundamental right to privacy was no longer res integra and the right to privacy can be curtailed when there is a larger public interest involved.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by CJ Christopher Signi against an order of the Special Judge rejecting his application for forensic examination of some audio and video recordings and for securing the voice sample of one of the defacto complainants.

The case against Signi was that, while working as the Electrical Inspector, he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 8000 from an Electrical Contractor for issuing a safety certificate for a 20 KVA generator. He was arrested in November 2018 through a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing and was facing trial under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial was at the stage of examination of defence witnesses.

Signi had argued that a pendrive, marked during the defence evidence, contained three voice recordings of a conversation with the defacto complainant. It was submitted that the tone and context of the conversations negate the prosecution's narrative and support the defence version. Thus, he argued that the veracity and the integrity of the recordings needed to be verified through scientific examination by an expert under Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act.

The petitioner also argued that a video recording, which was crucial to the case, also had to be examined, which established the defence case of suppression of crucial evidence. It was argued that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application by noting that the recordings were transferred from the petitioner's phone and thus might have been altered using mobile software. The petitioner argued that mere possibility of tampering should not displace the need for an expert opinion and denial of the opportunity will undermine his right for a fair hearing.

The State contended that the petitioner's application was misconceived and filed only to protract the proceedings. It was also submitted that the video recording relied on by the petitioner was created 4 years after the incident.

The court observed that the video, being recorded after 4 years would not, by itself, render it inadmissible or irrelevant. The court added that if the conversation in the video turns out to be authentic, it would have a potential bearing on the integrity of the trap proceedings.

Thus, noting that the Special Judge's order suffered from non-application of mind to the legal principles governing expert evidence and fair trial, the court set aside the same and allowed the petitioners plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. R. Shanmuganathan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. S. Abul Kalam Azad Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: CJ Christopher Signi v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 257

Case No: Crl.RC(MD)No.475 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)No.4915 of 2025