Back
Sunil Rajan K – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Police, Vigilance And Anti-Corruption Bureau – Respondent
ORDER :
C. Jayachandran, J.
Legal intricacies which stems from the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution never subsumes and here, it surfaces by way of a voice sample.
2. The petitioner - the sole accused in Crime bearing V.C.No.7/2024 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram - is aggrieved by Annexure-C Order, which permitted the petitioner's voice sample being taken at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram on 4. 11.2024 at 10.00 a.m.
3. Heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). Perused the records.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that, the petitioner/accused demanded a bribe of Rs.52,000/- for issuing necessary records from the Village Office, so as to enable the defacto complainant to apply for 'Pattayam' in respect of 35 cents of land. The petitioner accordingly received Rs.30,000/- from the defacto complainant. A trap was laid, based upon which the crime was registered against the petitioner.
5. The Order impugned is assailed on various grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was first pointed out that, during the alleged time of
Compelling a voice sample for investigation is lawful, even if the accused is not in custody, as privacy rights yield to public interest.
The court ruled that compelling voice samples for investigation does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The power of a judicial magistrate to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedur....
The right to privacy is not absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. The Court conceded powers to the Judicial Magistrate to order giving of voice samples until explicit provisions a....
The right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest, and certification under Section 65-B of the Act is needed when the recording is to be produced in trial as evidence.
Compelling a person to give a sample of his voice for investigation purposes does not violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
