The main legal point established in the judgment is that providing voice samples voluntarily for investigation purposes does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

1. By these two petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) the petitioners have impugned the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.254/2013 in case FIR No.240/2012 under Sections 384/511/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Crime Branch, New Delhi whereby the CFSL Experts at CBI were directed to prepare a “text inter-mixed with sufficient sentences from the questioned text” so that the petitioners may give their voice samples.

2. Since both the petitions have arisen out of FIR No.240/2012 registered at P.S. Crime Branch and involve identical question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The concise facts of the present case are that on 02.10.2012 FIR No.240/2012 was registered at P.S. Crime Branch, New Delhi on a complaint made by Mr. Rajiv Bhadauria, Director (HR) and authorized representative of M/s. Jindal Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 384/511/420/120B IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 27.11.2012. While the petitioners were in custody, an application was moved by the State praying for seeking consent of the petitioners for furnishing their voice samples. Reply was filed by the petitioners to the said application. In reply, the petitioners gave their consent for giving their voice sample. The said application was disposed of by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 13.12.2012 wherein the investigating officer was empowered to move an appropriate application for the visit of the petitioners to the place/ office where he proposes to collect/ get samples. Pursuant to it, the petitioners were called for giving their voice samples by the investigating officer on 21.12.2012. When the petitioners reached the police station to give their voice samples, the investigating officer asked them to read out a paper. The petitioners objected and refused to provide their voice samples as the paper that they were asked to read contained inculpatory statements. Thereafter, the petitioners moved application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. praying for the monitoring of the investigation, directions to the investigating officer for providing material for the purpose of voice samples which does not contain any inculpatory statement and also that the said sample be collected in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate. Vide order dated 04.02.2013, the said application was dismissed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi with the directions that in case the petitioners want to give voice samples then the same is to be given as per the instructions of the investigating officer and the scientific officers.

4. Against the said order a revision was preferred by the petitioners bearing C.R. No.16/2013 (new No.254/13). The said revision petition was heard and disposed of vide impugned order dated 07.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order was based on the misreading of the judgment of this Court in “Rakesh Bisht vs. CBI”, (2007) 1 JCC 482. In the said judgment it was stated that the Court may permit taking of voice sample only for the purpose of identification. The sample so collected would not be admissible if it contains inculpatory statements. This fact was not considered by the learned trial court.

7. It was further contended that although the accused persons have consented to give their respective voice samples as per law, however, they have not consented to be witness against themselves. If the petitioners (accused persons) are asked to read incriminating sentences, it shall be in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Even as p