LAKHI KARI NARAYANDAS MAKHIJA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.complainant, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE complainant has lodged his FIR against the respondent-orig.accused under Sections 384, 385 of Indian Penal Code. THE said case is numbered as Case No.408 of 2004 and it is pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Ulhasnagar. THE case of the complainant is that he received certain telephone calls from the respondent-accused wherein threats were given to the complainant and some amount was sought to be extorted from him. THE complainant had produced the cassettes wherein the voice of the complainant and the accused is allegedly recorded by him. THE prayer of the complainant was that the said cassettes have not been referred to the expert for identification of the voice in the said cassettes. Hence, application came to be preferred by the complainant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation in respect of the said cassettes. THE application was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved thereby, Criminal Application No.843 of 2007 was preferred before this Court. By order dated 27th July, 2007 the said Criminal Application came to be disposed of by this Court. In the order dated 27.7.2007 it was observed that though the petitioner made an application for direction to undertake further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the same has been rejected, his limited grievance is that the taped cassettes which are already before the Court along with the charge-sheet submitted by the I.O., are required to be referred to an appropriate agency to confirm or otherwise the voice of the accused which has been taped as per the complainant. It was further observed that during the course of trial it is for the learned A.P.P. appearing before the trial Court to take appropriate steps to ensure that the cassettes are referred to an expert agency to record its opinion on the voice or voices so recorded. Considering the observation made in the order dated 27.7.2007 it reveals that the prayer for the further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the High Court and it was for the learned APP to take appropriate steps to ensure that the cassettes are referred to an expert agency to record its opinion on the voices in the tape.

(3.) IN view of the order of this Court dated 27th July, 2007 the learned APP to prefer an application before the trial Court for referring the cassettes to the expert agency for identification of the voices therein. The said to be done expeditiously and in any event by 24th November, 2008. Mr.Shitole the learned APP states that the undertaking furnished by the investigating agency to this court on 27th July, 2007 that the learned APP will take appropriate steps by applying before the trial Court for sending the said cassettes to the expert agency will be complied by 24th November, 2008.