The directive to provide a voice sample for comparison in a criminal investigation does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 15-2-2021 passed by the Revisional Court-Sessions Judge, Dausa in Cr. Revision Petition No.9/2021, Ankit Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29-1-2021 passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalaya Dausa directing the petitioner to give voice sample in FIR No.362/2019 at Police Station CPS, ACB Jaipur for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya as well as learned Sessions Judge have erred in arriving at the conclusion that the accused of any offence can be compelled to give his voice sample, because such direction would be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that a wrong finding has also been recorded that the admitted voice recording is already available with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. In compliance of the order dated 26-7-2021, Investigating Officer, Ms. Priya, Circle Inspector, ACB, Jaipur is present in person, who submits that despite clear directions, the petitioner is not coming forward to give his voice samples for comparison, which is essential in reaching to the right conclusion in the matter.

5. Learned AGC has vehemently opposed the petition with the submission that the directions to give voice sample during the course of investigation does not violate fundamental right of the accused as the same is not self incriminating.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, this court finds that learned Revisional Court has categorically dealt with all the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and on the basis of the verdict in Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2019) 8 SCC 1], Rabindra Kumar Bhalotia Vs. State [Cr. Revision No.808, 816, 823 of 2015, M.P. No.1 of 2015 decided on 28-11- 2017], A.K. Pratap Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 1 Crimes 282], State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808], Daisy M.P. Vs. State of Kerala [2020 SCC Online Ker 1694], Sahiram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-7-2020, has rightly concluded that directing the petitioner to provide his specimen voice sample for comparison is not the testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the petitioner can be directed to give voice sample for comparison with the disputed voice to reach to the right conclusion in the matter under investigation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not factually correct that the Nyayadhikari has opined the admitted voice of the accused petitioner is available with the ACB, rather it has been noted in the impugned order that the voice sample is required for comparison with the disputed voice. Thus, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

8. Interim application stands dismissed.