SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 220

FARJAND ALI
Omkar Sapre, S/o. Shri Manohar Sapre – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amar Kumar & Mr. Manish Parmar on behalf of Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Yadav, AAG, Mr. Arvind Kumar, P.P.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The magistrate has the authority to allow voice sample collection during investigation but cannot compel the accused to provide them; its role is to verify the collection process and ensure fairness. (!) (!) - An adverse inference from the accused’s denial to provide a voice sample is for the trial court to decide, and the magistrate’s observations regarding such inference are not permissible to bind the trial outcome. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The matter discusses that proceedings related to voice sample can be entertained by the magistrate, and the competence of the magistrate in such matters is upheld, while observations about adverse inferences are struck down. (!) (!) (!)

How to determine the magistrate's jurisdiction and role in voice sample collection under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

What is the effect of a accused's denial to provide a voice sample on adverse inferences at trial and who decides such inferences?

What are the limits of a magistrate's power to adjudicate or observe adverse inferences in voice sample proceedings before a special court?


ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in FIR No.229/2021 registered at the Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B of the IPC whereby the application filed by the investigating agency asking for voice sample of the petitioner has been entertained by observing that the Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide such an application and it has been further observed that since the accused has denied from giving voice sample, therefore, the trial Court would be at liberty to draw an adverse inference from the said denial.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts giving rise to the instant miscellaneous petition are that during investigation of the aforementioned case, the investigating agency moved an application to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I for collection of voice sample of the accused. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur had forwar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top