Requiring the accused to lend his voice sample for the limited purpose of identification of his voice does not amount to testimonial compulsion and does not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent, Mr. Nimbalkar waives notice for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pradhan waives notice for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. Mundargi waives notice for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. Mundargi waives notice for respondent No. 4. Mr. More, A. P. P. waives notice for respondent No. 7.

( 3 ) AS short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

( 4 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Special Judge under Maharashtra Control of organised Crimes Act, 1999, Pune, dated december 12, 2003 below Exhibit 156 in special Case No. 2 of 2003. The State of maharashtra, through Superintendent of police, S. I. T. Pune, had filed application before the Special Judge, being Exhibit 156, praying that they may be permitted to record the voice samples of the respondents 1 to 6 herein in the jail premises itself, where the said respondents were lodged and further direct the said respondents to co-operate in that behalf. The respondents 1 to 6 have been named as accused Nos. 23, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 49 respectively in offence relating to "stamp scam case" registered vide C. R. No. 135 of 2002 at Bund-Garden Police Station, pune. The said application was resisted by the respondents 1 to 6 herein, and the Special Judge, upon considering the rival submissions, rejected the same by the impugned judgment and Order. The present petition takes exception to the said Order.

( 5 ) THIS petition was initially filed by the state of Maharashtra. However, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, investigation in respect of the said case has been taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to order passed by the Supreme court of India. In that backdrop, the Central Bureau of Investigation moved a formal application before this Court for transposing them as petitioner, and for making the state of Maharashtra as party respondent no. 7. The said application was allowed by this Court by consent, consequent to which, the present petition is now espoused by the central Bureau of Investigation.

( 6 ) MR. Tulpule appeared for the petitioner. According to him, the request made in the application was simpliciter to obtain voice sample so as to enable the investigating agency to identify the voice of the concerned accused and compare the same with the tape-recorded conversation which has been made available during the investigation of the case. According to him, the Court below has clearly misdirected itself in rejecting the application for reasons amongst others, that similar request made by Karnataka Police earlier was rejected, as the Court cannot compel the accused for giving a voice sample; that there are voice experts, who can easily concoct or tamper the voice of any person; that accused can also change their voice if they are compelled to give voice sample; that it will be difficult for the expert to record the voice sample under compulsion; that the respondents accused were not ready and willing to give their voice samples to verify the alleged intercepted telephonic conversation between main accused A. K. L. Telgi and the respondents herein adverse inference can be drawn that the same intercepted telephonic conversation is between accused a. K. L. Telgi and the respondents, for which reason, it was not necessary for the prosecution to establish the identity of the voice recorded in the C. Ds. by the scientific and expert evidence obtaining the voice samples of the accused respondents. Moreover, the court below has rejected the prayer in spite of the finding that obtaining such voice sample would not amount to testimonial compulsion, as the accused were unwilling to give their voice sample. According to Mr. Tulpule, none of the reasons which have weighed with the Court below are appropriate or can be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document