SUDHAKAR RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) During the course of investigation in case crime no. 7 of 2017 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 12 of Passport Act and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an application was filed by the investigating officer before the court below on 19.6.2017 praying that the voice sample of two accused persons,namely, Maroof son of Mohd. Farukh and the petitioner who is a public servant holding the post of Assistant Passport officer, may be permitted to be procured and sent for a forensic analysis and the investigation may accordingly be permitted to be carried out and finalised.

(3.) The charge sheet came to be filed by the investigating officer on 10.7.2017 but prior thereto the court below passed an order on 6.7.2017 allowing the application insofar as the collection of voice sample of the petitioner being a public servant is concerned, whereas the prayer for collection of voice sample from Maroof son of Mohd Farukh was declined. The order passed by the court below records reasons as to why the voice sample of the petitioner for comparative analysis is desirable and for this purpose the mobile numbers of the accused and the co-accused (petitioner) have been mentioned in the order through which a conversation that has taken place during duty hours is alleged to be available with the investigation in the form of electronic record i.e. CD disc.