admitted case of P.W.2 that prior to the registration of the case, he had spoken to the appellant/accused and during such conversation, the appellant/accused had demanded money and that the said conversation was also recorded in his mobile phone, which he had shown to P.W.14-Trap Laying Officer. Further, it is also the admitted case of P.W.2 that prior to the complaint to P.W.14-Trap Laying Officer, he had preferred complaints against the appellant/accused to the Tahsildar as well as the Collector and he had also mentioned about the earlier complaints in the complaint,Ex.P.2 given to the Trap Laying Officer on 15.12.2009. Whereas, a perusal of Ex. P.2 complaint reveals that the alleged complaints made to the Collector and Tahsildar against the appellant/accused had not been mentioned in Ex.P.2. Further in Ex.P.2, nothing has been mentioned about the alleged conversation between P.W.2 and the appellant/accused, as stated by P.W.2. In this aspect, it is to be seen that P.W.14-Trap Laying Officer, in his evidence, has admitted that the alleged conversation between P.W.2 and appellant/accused was recorded. However, he has stated that since the phone was an old phone, he was unable to recover the recordings. Strangely, in this case, neither the phone nor the recording has been recovered by the prosecution. Further regarding authenticity of the content written in the complaint, the de facto complainant, in Ex P2, has stated that he knows to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis read and write Tamil, however, during the chief and cross-examination, he
