Even if evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible"
In R.M. Malkani (supra), the Supreme Court, inter alia,
observed that "there is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is
illegally obtained, it is admissible". The Supreme Court observed as
under:-
"24. It was said by counsel for the appellant that the tape recorded conversation was obtained by illegal means. The illegality was said to be contravention of Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act. There is no violation of Section 25 of the Telagraph Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is warrant for proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones v. Owen [ (1870) 34 JP 759] . The Judicial Committee in Kuruma, Son of Kanju v. R. [ 1955 AC 197] dealt with the conviction of an accused of being in unlawful possession of ammunition which had been dis
