Rahul Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 714 MP

                                     1


                 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                                CRR-617-2021
 ( Rahul Goyal Vs. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Office Gwalior (M.P.))


Gwalior dated : 15/03/2021

      Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/Lokayukt Organization.

1. The revisional jurisdiction of this court u/S.397/401 of Cr.P.C. is

invoked by petitioner-accused in a trial under the Prevention of Corruption

Act assailing interlocutory order dated 05/02/2021 [Passed in Case

No.24/2021 MJCR by Special Judge (P.C. Act) district Morena] by which

an application of prosecution vide P/2 seeking voice sample of the

petitioner-accused is allowed with direction to petitioner to be present to

give his voice sample.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of

admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised the ground of

violation of constitutional right of an accused under Article 20(3) of the

Constitution where no person who is accused in an offence can be made

witnessed against his own self.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by directing

petitioner to give his voice samples, the petitioner is being made to make

statement against him. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision

of Apex Court in case of Sudhir Chaudhary & Others Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) reported in 2016(8) SCC 307.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of

the considered view that the present petition deserves to be rejected for the

reasons infra:

(1). The prosecution intends to collect voice sample in a case of

acceptance of illegal gratification where trap was laid after the

complainant surreptitiously recorded the conversation

between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter,

obtaining voice sample by prosecution during investigation

or trial is for the purpose of collecting data for comparing the

earlier voice sample furnished by the complainant with the

one now intended to be collected. The collection of voice

sample in this manner does not lead to collection of any

substantive evidence.

(2). The decision in the case of Sudhir Chaudhary (Supra) does

not assist the petitioner as in the said case the Apex Court had

expressly discarded the contention that collection of voice

sample leads to violation of any constitutional rights which is

evident from perusal of para-9 of the said judgment which is

reproduced below:-

"9. The Appellants expressly consented to a voice sample being drawn in their response to the application that was filed by the Investigating officer before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. This was reiterated before the High Court. In the submissions which have been urged in these proceedings, learned counsel has specifically stated that the Appellants would abide by the consent which they had furnished to their voice samples being drawn. That being the position, the only surviving issue for this Court is to ensure that the underlying process for drawing the voice samples is

fair and reasonable, having due regard to the mandate of Article 21. On the one hand, it is not open to the accused to dictate the course of investigation. Hence, we do not find substance in the submission that the text which is to be read by the Appellants in the course of drawing their voice samples should contain no part of the inculpatory words which are a part of the disputed conversation. A commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination."

(3). Moreso, in the judgment of Sudhir Chaudhary (Supra) the

Apex Court also held that the accused is not entitled to dictate

and interfere in the investigation process. The only direction

given by the Apex Court was regarding the contents of the

proposed passage of a written text which was to be read out

by the accused for the purpose of giving his voice sample.

(4). Therefore, the principal objection to the taking of voice

sample was rejected by the Apex Court.

6. In view of above, this Court does not see any reason to interfere as

the order impugned does not suffer from illegality or material irregularity.

7. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed.

                                             (Sheel Nagu)                                    (Anand Pathak)
                                                Judge                                             Judge
                                            (15/03/2021)                                    (15/03/2021)
   (suneel)



SUNEE
        Digitally signed by SUNEEL
        DUBEY
        DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
        MADHYA PRADESH BENCH



L
        GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
        MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
        st=Madhya Pradesh,
        2.5.4.20=157244b0239a6fd662b



DUBEY
        29b00a11fc66a5e160f585aa7a92
        425f380d476b32818,
        cn=SUNEEL DUBEY
        Date: 2021.03.16 12:49:25 -07'00'