SWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dtd. 14/6/2022 passed by Judge, Special Court SAS Nagar, directing the petitioner to give voice sample, the present petition is filed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.7 dtd. 8/4/2019, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short '1988 Act') registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The petitioner was posted as SDO, Sub-Division Badali Ala Singh, P.S.P.C.L, District Fatehgarh Sahib. A complaint was filed by Inderjit Singh alleging that bribe of Rs.10,000.00 was demanded by the petitioner for transfer of electricity connection of motor. The deal was struck for Rs.8000.00. On complaint, a trap was laid. The petitioner was apprehended red handed. As per the case set up, a voice recorder with memory card was handed over to the complainant for recording the conversation. The petitioner was arrested on 8/4/2019, he remained in remand of Vigilance Department for two days and thereafter in judicial custody for a month. On presentation of challan, the charges were framed. An application was filed by prosecution seeking permission to get voice sample of the petitioner for comparison with audio recording. The application was allowed. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel argues that the directions given in the impugned order compels the petitioner to be witness against himself. The argument is that direction for taking voice sample can be given only to Magistrate and not by Special Judge, under 1988 Act. The contention is that there is delay in filing application as no voice sample was taken when the petitioner was in custody. It is further argued that C.D. was prepared using a laptop and memory card of the voice recorder. There is nothing on record to show that the original source has been taken into custody and there is no certification under Sec. 65-B of The Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act').