LOHITH MANOHAR S/O. MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O NO. 18, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK. EAST, BY RASANDRA, BANGALORE Vs. STATE BY RAMMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAMMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case has called in question the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC.No.2838/2010. The order of the learned Magistrate reads thus: The accused is directed to give his voice sample recording on the next date of hearing. The I.O. is directed to make arrangements for obtaining voice recording of the accused, before the court, on the next date of hearing. This order has been challenged by this petitioner before the learned Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.25033/2011 and the learned Sessions judge by his order dated 20.07.2011 has rejected the revision petition filed against the order of the learned Magistrate.

(2.) HEARD Sri G.Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish R.Girji, learned HCGP for the respondent State.

(3.) LEARNED HCGP submits that in this case, the Investigating Officer has filed an application on 19.07.2010 requesting the Court to permit the Investigating Officer to record the voice of the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the same with the CD., which has already been produced by the complainant and subjected to P.F.No. 106/2009. The said application is filed seeking further investigation into the matter. The order now challenged has been passed on 09.03.2011. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed on 27.03.2011, subsequent to the said application. Hence, he submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate in permitting the Investigating Officer to record the voice of the petitioner, since it is essential in the just decision of the case. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.