High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2020 passed by learned Trial Court in case FIR under Section 364A/120B/368/34 IPC registered at police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Brief Facts:
The learned Trial Court per impugned order allowed the application moved by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to take the voice samples of the accused person, including the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the delay in filing such application as the trial is at its fag end. It is alleged the FIR in question was registered on 08.05.2015. On 07.08.2015 the charge sheet was filed. The charges were framed and matter was listed for prosecution evidence for 26.08.2016. However, on 09.04.2018, the Investigating Officer moved an application for seeking voice sample of the accused persons, which application was allowed vide the impugned order dated 07.11.2020. Admittedly, the voice samples were taken on 07.12.2020 and the FSL report has now been received and was filed along with the supplementary charge sheet on 27.01.2021. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no procedure under the Cr P C to get the voice sample of the accused and as such the application ought to have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others wherein the Court noted:- “though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such power is available therefor to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto.”
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court looked into Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel’s case and noted that such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand.
HC also relied upon the case of Ritesh Sinha vs State of Utter Pradesh & Anr where it was stated fundamental right to privacy cannot be considered to be as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. HC stated that thus, there appear to be no doubt upon the power of the learned Trial Court to allow an application seeking permission to get the voice sample of accused.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the voice sample has matched with the voice of the accused. Admittedly, the case is for ransom /kidnapping which entails maximum punishment, hence to seek the ends of justice, one cannot say the impugned order was wrong. In view of above, I find no fault in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court.”
Case Title: Shahrukh v. The State NCT of Delhi
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna
Citation: CRL.M.C. 651/2021
Decided on: 22nd March, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
