In R. M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra (22 September 1972), did the accused’s lack of awareness that…

The Court held "No; the relevant, authenticated and accurate recording was admitted on the facts", after considering voice identification, accuracy and the absence of compulsion. The accused's lack of knowledge did not itself exclude it, so "Yes; lack of the accused's awareness alone made it inadmissible" and "Yes; an unknowingly recorded conversation is necessarily irrelevant" are wrong, and "The Court left admissibility of the recording undecided" is wrong because the Court decided admissibility.