Evidence obtained by undesirable means- Amaresh Patel BASICS OF LAW Sat, Apr 06, 2019, at ,03:34 PM The Supreme Court has made it clear in Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. Wadhawan, AIR SC 1748 that where “evidence” offered comes within the meaning of its definition, the court can act on it and need not concern itself with the method by which the evidence in question was obtained. The Court cited the observation of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Barindra Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, ILR (1910) 37 Cal. 467 to the effect that relevant evidence remains relevant even if it was obtained in the course of a search or seizure in violation of provision of Criminal Procedure Code. Similarly, in R. Vs. Sang, (1979) 2 All ER 1222, the House of Lords observed that however much the judge may dislike the way in which a particular piece of evidence was obtained before proceedings were commenced, if it is admissible evidence and is probative of the accused guilt, it is no part of the judicial function to exclude it by this reason. He has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The House of Lords would sanction the exclusion of such evidence only where the accused had lured into incriminating himself by deception after the Commission of an offence. The Supreme Court noted the only exception to the rule, which is that where after the alleged offence, improper methods have been used to obtain evidence for it and the judge is of the view that the prejudicial effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidentiary value, the judge may exclude it. A unique example is to be seen in R. Christou, (1992) 4 All ER 559 the police operated for about three months by establishing a shop of jewelers and putting up the shady image of being indebted in buying stolen property. The object was to recover stolen goods and to obtain evidence against those involved in theft and handling. All the transaction in the shop were filmed and conversations recorded and the dealings were observed by other officers through video link. The evidence so collected was not allowed to be excluded from the trial, the court saying “The trick was not applied to the appellants accused persons; they voluntarily applied themselves to the trick. It is not every trick producing evidence against an accused which results in unfair means.” The fairness of the proceedings as a whole is generally more likely to be compromised in a situation where the suspect has been deluded after being formally subjected to the control of the police.