REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SANJAY GUPTA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF BOMBAY VS. KATHI KALU OGHAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. PALI RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM BABU MISRA [REFERRED TO]
SUKHVINDERSINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JAGBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH BISHT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
B RAMI REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
FARID AEMED VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BHUSHAN RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
T SUBBIAH VS. S K D RAMASWAMY NADAR [REFERRED TO]
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VS. DEVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NEW DELHI VS. ABDUL KARIM LADSAB TELGI [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVIR SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
GULZAR KHAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the point for determination is the same i.e. as to whether it is open to the Court to issue direction for taking of voice samples before a case has been filed in the Court?.

(2.) I am not going into the factual matrix as it is undisputed before me that in all the cases the prosecution had filed application(s) before the learned Special Judge praying for direction that each of the Petitioners therein be directed to furnish voice sample(s) which can be compared by an Expert/Forensic Laboratory.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General contends that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi and Ors., 2005 Cri.L.J. 2868 which is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad : AIR 1961 SC 1808 lays down the correct proposition of law and that the High Court of Delhi was incorrect in holding to the contrary.

Click here to view full judgment.

SANJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address