ROOPESH @ PRAVEEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions arise for consideration in the above matters, they are heard and decided together.

(2.) In Crl. Appeal No. 888/16, appellant being the first accused in SC No. 3/16 pending before the NIA Court, Ernakulam has approached this Court challenging Annexure II order dated 05/08/2016 by which the Court had allowed Crl.M.P. No. 100/16 permitting the investigating agency to take the voice sample of the appellant for the purpose of comparing his voice with the voice in a video clipping collected during investigation. Certain other directions had also been issued.

(3.) In Crl.M.C. No. 7102/17, the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in RC 5(A) / 2017 - CBI / ACB / Cochin on the files of the Special Sessions Judge (SPE) / CBI) - III Court, Ernakulam. The investigation into the above crime is still pending. Annexure A1 application was filed by the investigating agency requesting for a direction to record the sample voices of the accused and the complainant in the Court hall with the help of technical experts of Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Thiruvananthapuram in order to send the same for expert opinion. It is alleged that the conversation between the accused and complainant made on three days were recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant which was later seized by CBI. Though an objection was filed by the respondent, by Annexure A3 order dated 09/10/2017, the Special Sessions Judge allowed the said application.