MR. AMIT KHETAWAT Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner-AO.No.1 of Crime No.7/ACB-CIU-Hyd/2015, dated 02.12.2015, aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.50 of 2016 in Crime No.7/ACB-CIU-Hyd/2015 passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition/Memo filed by the Prosecution under Sections 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468, 471 and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC, seeking permission to record the voice samples of A.1, in directing to submit voice samples of A.1 so as to enable the Investigating Agency to send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison to determine the voice of A.1.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of revision vis-a-vis the oral submissions in the course of hearing by the learned counsel for revision petitioner-A.1 are that the impugned order of the Court below is contrary to law, with no requirement of such a test and that too for no enabling provision and also for no reason or just cause much less to intrude into the personal liberty and to compel petitioner-A.1 against his will by testimonial compulsion and thereby sought for setting aside the impugned order of the Court below.

(3.) Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for SPE and ACB Cases representing the respondent- State in support of the impugned order of the Court below that the same does not amount to testimonial compulsion to stand as a witness against himself, but only comes within the broader meaning of furnishing of information other than within the exclusive knowledge of accused for same is only a voice sampling for comparison and opinion and comes within the meaning of such other tests mentioned in Explanation (a) of Section 53 of Cr.P.C., and thus, the same is well within its scope contemplated by law and also necessary for the effective adjudication of the criminal lis and once it is a procedure established by law and will not come within the purview of testimonial compulsion of 'to be a witness against himself', but for furnishing evidence in larger sense, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. It is also submitted that it cannot be stated as intruding into the privacy or affecting the qualified Fundamental Right of Right to Life, that too the same when subject to due process of law to obey the orders of the Court below in submitting to the requirement of voice sample for analysis and hence to dismiss the revision.