Gujarat High Court
Viramgami Jayantilal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Sandeep N. Bhatt
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1317/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1317 of 2020
==========================================================
VIRAMGAMI JAYANTILAL SAVASHIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for the following prayers.
"(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and
allow this Special Criminal Application;
(b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and
set aside the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by
the Ld. 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dhrangadhra
where Ld. Judge was pleased to allowed
application filed by the Police Inspector and
ordered petitioner to give his voice sample;
(c) XXX"
2. Heard Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP for the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Chintal Dave submitted copy of the
report received from the concerned ACB, Police Station, Morbi
whereby it is stated that now charge sheet is filed and there is
sufficient material to connect the present petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1317/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
4. The present petition is filed pursuant to the voice sample test.
The Hon'ble Apex Court recently passed the order in the case of
Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat in SLP (Criminal)
No. 4693 of 2023, whereby the Court observed in Para Nos. 2, 3 and
4, which read as:
"2. In the above context, we have the benefit of
reading the ratio in 'Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh' reported in (2019) 8 SCC 1 where in the
context of voice sample collected for the purpose of
investigation, the three Judges Bench of this Court had
held :-
"26. Would a judicial order compelling a person
to give a sample of his voice violate the
fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3)
of the Constitution, is the next question. The
issue is interesting and debatable but not having
been argued before us it will suffice to note that
in view of the opinion rendered by this Court in
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v.
State of M.P., Gobind v. State of M. P. and
another and the nine Judge's Bench of this Court
in K.S. Puttaswamy(Privacy 9) v. Union of India
the fundamental right to privacy cannot be
construed as absolute and but must bow down to
compelling public interest. We refrain from any
further discussion and consider it appropriate not
to record any further observation on an issue not
specifically raised before us.
27. In the light of the above discussions, we
unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit
provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal
Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate
must be conceded the power to order a person to
give a sample of his voice for the purpose of
investigation of a crime. Such power has to be
conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1317/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. We order accordingly and
consequently dispose the appeals in terms of the
above."
3. The above would indicate that the Magistrate is
given the power to order for collection of voice sample
for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit
provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by the Parliament.
Such direction was issued by invoking powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
4. Supported by the above ratio, we see no infirmity
with the impugned judgment of the High Court as also
of the Special Court ordering the accused to give his
voice sample to facilitate investigation of the crime."
5. Considering the settled position of law and considering the
submissions made at bar, I having reason to interfere with the order
impugned. The learned Trial Court has passed the order after
considering the settled position of law, therefore no interference is
called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the settled
position of law, this petition requires to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
prk
