call recording

If that mobile phone conversation is submitted as an evidence in any court case, is that still be considered as infringement?

This all depends on circumstances and violations of law if any required.   If the recording is on unlawful /illegal things, the courts may not take it seriously, if the call recording is from the receiver's phone.

Recording of any call can be made since the recording facility is available on all the phones now. However, using such recording and blackmailing is a criminal offense. Matter can be reported to Police for taking action against such person.

This is erratic issue. I suspect my lines are tapped both mobile and internet, but I dgotta my know the exact person. If you know them, go and complain to the police.

In India, the protections provided by privacy legislation against individual call recording are not well defined. There is no law prohibiting an individual from recording a phone call on their equipment. People have a unique right to question the state's activity and even seek compensation if the call is recorded by a government agency or government. Persons can, however, sue for damages if they can show how the release of a pre-recorded phone conversation has harmed their reputation. Tape-recorded evidence or voice-recorded by any device is admissible during the trial for the purpose of being treated as evidence. On April 27, 1970, in the case of Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc. Vs. Shri V. V. Giri, the Supreme Court of India dealt extensively with the question of "tape-recorded conversation" and its admissibility. Citations in the case law: 1971 AIR 1162, 1971 SCR (1) 399. Although the evidence was gathered involuntarily, Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 allows it to be recognized as a reliable piece of evidence. The person against whom such evidence is utilized, however, must be given the chance to oppose the nature and contents of the recorded discussion. Analysis is the most typical approach used to combat such evidence. The person who is being prosecuted can request that the voice pattern in the recorded call be matched to his voice sample. Furthermore, the court can use Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to seek an opinion from "experts in this field" in order to match the two samples. Following that, the court might weigh the evidence put before it in order to reach a decision based on the report supplied by the "experts."

Mr. Das, it is useless. My manager also recorded my voice when I scolded him. But he did not record anything on himself when he did wrong at workplace. These are cheap people with inbuilt software on mobile.

Another example, I know a manager who is a body builder, his voice is soft. I also know a guy who smokes cigarettes and hence he is soft speaking as well. When ever he calls a job placement company consultancy, they used to think this guy is poor or unhealthy and never got a proper job. If recoding facility is not there, all of these problems will not be there per say.

Next, no one knows what the Tech companies do. They have a policy to record their own employees and take advantage of them.

Lots of issues. Exaggerating the situation, the cybercrime units don’t have enough technology to trap a single cyber breache. It is best, all policies be formulated by DOT and stop giving software access to anyone.

Individual choice recording protections afforded by privacy regulations in India are not adequately defined. There is no law that prohibits a private from recording a phone call on their equipment. People have a novel right to criticise the state's conduct and even seek compensation if the decision is documented by a government or authority. Individuals will, however, fight for damages if they can demonstrate that the release of a pre-recorded phone language has harmed their reputation. Throughout the trial, recorded proof or voice-recorded by any device is admissible for the purpose of being treated as proof. On April 27, 1970, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bharat addressed the issue of "tape-recorded conversation" and its acceptability in the case of Shri N. Sri avatar Reddy Etc. vs. Shri V. V. Giri. Case law citations: 1971 AIR 1162, 1971 SCR (1) 399. Despite the fact that the evidence was acquired involuntarily, Section 65B of the Indian Proof Act of 1872 allows it to be accepted as a trustworthy piece of evidence. However, the individual against whom such evidence is used should be prepared to argue against the nature and contents of the recorded dialogue. Analysis is the most typical strategy used to combat such evidence. The defendant will request that the voice pattern in the recorded decision be matched to his voice sample. Furthermore, the court will employ Section 45 of the Indian Proof Act, 1872 to seek advice from "experts in this field" in order to match the two samples. Following it, the court might weigh the evidence presented to it in order to succeed a different supported the report provided by the "experts."