HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.316 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 23.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.242 of 2021 in Cr.No.115 of 2020 (P.S. Yellareddy), on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Kamareddy, wherein the trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution for fixing a date and issuing summons in order to direct the accused person Smt. Chittimilla Aruna to attend at Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL), Hyderabad for comparison of alleged voice with that of her voice.
2. It is the specific contention of the accused that the trial Court ought not have allowed the criminal petition directing the accused to give voice sample on 02.03.2022 at 10:30 a.m. before TSFSL as it is in violation of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. It is the further contention of the accused that a detailed counter was filed before the trial Court contending that there is no specific provision 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022 under Cr.P.C and further the respondent never admitted the alleged voice and as such, the voice sample cannot be obtained.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that voice sample cannot be obtained and in support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Smt Rayalla M. Bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphanender Rayalla1, wherein it is held that tapes, even if true cannot be admissible in evidence and if the tapes are not admissible in evidence, there is no question of forcing the petitioner to undergo voice test and then ask the expert to compare the portions denied by her with her admitted voice. He contended that once herself had denied her voice, the Court cannot compel the party/petitioner to give her voice sample for comparison and it is in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 1 AIR 2008 AP 98 3 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that collection of voice sample of the party by the Investigating Agency is not at all in violation of 20(3) of the Constitution of India and in support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.A.No.2003 of 2012) and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that on 01.06.2020, the de facto complainant had preferred a complaint to P.S., Yellareddy contending that while he was incharge of Congress Party of Yellareddy Assembly Constituency, on 31.05.2020 at 3:00 p.m., the accused made a phone call to one Takesh, incharge of Gopalpet Congress Party and stated to the complainant that he has sold the party tickets in the last Municipality Elections and abused the complainant in most filthy language and insulted him by taking personal issues, for which he sought legal action.
7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected CD which contained voice of the accused (alleged recorded voice of the accused) and also collected CDR data. In 4 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022 order to compare the said voices, the prosecution has filed the present petition before the Court.
8. The trial Court also considered the ratio and propositions laid down in Ritesh Sinha's case (supra) wherein it was held that direction to take voice sample of the accused does not infringe/violate rights of the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and it can be obtained by the Investigating Agency or the police when Magistrate directs to do so and gave a finding that Magistrate is empowered to pass orders for getting the voice sample of the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court fixed the schedule date on 02.03.2022. It is relevant to mention that the trial Court has also relied on the judgments of High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in R.K.Akhande vs. Spl.Police Establishment2 and High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kamalpal and another vs. State of Punjab3, wherein both the Courts have come to a conclusion that the accused who is judicially directed to give voice sample for the purpose of enquiry or comparison purpose do not infringe the right to privacy.
2 Manu/MP/0663/2021 3 Manu/PH/0682/2021 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.316 of 2022
9. On perusal of the orders of the Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that basing on the judgment of the Apex Court and also on the propositions laid down by different High Courts, the Magistrate has rightly opined that it is just and necessary for the police/prosecution to have the voice sample of the accused, in order to compare the same with that of the alleged voice sample in the CDR's and accordingly fixed the schedule date for collecting the voice sample of the accused. Thus, there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial Court.
10. In view of the above discussion, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 15.02.2023 dv