JUDGMENT :

1. Since common question of law raised in these two petitions, they are taken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts of Criminal Revision Application No. 157 of 2021

2. By way of this revision application, the petitioner – accused challenges a judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Special Court (ACB) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.1317 of 2020, whereby application filed by the prosecution requesting the concerned Court directing petitioner to give his voice sample before competent Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory (for short “FSL”), Gandhinagar, as it is required for the purpose of voice spectrography, as during the course of investigation, recorded conversation, in between the petitioner – accused and the first-informant, is found and sent to the FSL for comparison thereof, whereas request made by Investigating Officer to give the same voluntarily is refused in writing.

Facts of Criminal Revision Application No. 960 of 2022

3. By way of this revision application, the petitioner therein challenges an order passed by the Special Judge (A.C.B.) dated 21.05.2022 rendered in Criminal Misc. Application (S) No. 66 of 2022 directing the petitioner – accused to remain present before the Investigating Officer to give his voice samples for spectrograph test. The petitioner – accused is prosecuted for an offence under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner – accused, submitted that for the offence committed on 08.02.2021, First Information Report came to be filed on 09.02.2021 against the petitioner – accused. Pursuant to the FIR filed by Ashishbhai Rameshbhai Patel, petitioner – accused is charge-sheeted long back i.e. on 07.04.2021. Therefore, the application praying for voice sample of the petitioner – accused came to be filed by the In-charge Police Inspector, Anand A.C.B. Police station, Anand, on 20.04.2022, i.e. after about a year of the charge-sheet being filed, given at a belated stage to fill up the lacuna in the investigation and it should not be permitted, as investigation is already concluded or else it may amount to further investigation.

4.1 So far as other ground is concerned, the conversation in between the petitioner – accused as also the first-informant in respect of demand of illegal gratification prior to filing of the FIR and during the trap proceeding also, it is recorded, which is sent to the FSL, Gandhinagar as muddamal. Pursuant thereto, FSL, Gandhinagar, informed the Investigating Officer to have the control voice sample of the first-informant as also the accused and for the purpose, a date was given being 15.03.2022. After receiving said letter from the FSL, Gandhinagar, the In-charge Investigating Officer issued notice to the petitioner – accused requesting him to give his control voice sample by remaining present before the FSL, Gandhinagar. However, the petitioner – accused shown his unwillingness in writing, which constrained the Investigating Officer to request the Court seeking direction upon the petitioner – accused to give his control voice sample by remaining present before the FSL, Gandhinagar. After said application was filed before the Court concerned, notice came to be issued to the accused and after hearing both the sides, the learned Judge by impugned order, directed the petitioner – accused to remain present as and when called by the Investigating Officer, to give his voice sample.

4.2 The contention that since investigation is over before a year to the application filed, no such request could have been made by the Investigating Officer to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution, is required to be rejected outright. So far as conversation in between petitioner – accused as also the first-informant, prior to the FIR as also during the course of trap, is already recorded and collected by th