Back
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
Ankit Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
The directive to provide a voice sample for comparison in a criminal investigation does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
The court ruled that compelling voice samples for investigation does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Point of Law; Mobile phone seized during the investigation of the case contains details of the conversion between the petitioner and the de facto complainant with regard to the demand for bribe and v....
The direction to give voice sample for comparison purposes does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, and the requirement of certification under Section 65-B of the Ac....
The court upheld the legality of compelling a voice sample post-charge framing, reinforcing that such actions do not violate constitutional rights when properly ordered during investigations.
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.
Compelling a voice sample for investigation is lawful, even if the accused is not in custody, as privacy rights yield to public interest.
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....
Compelling to give voice samples does not infringe the right to privacy, and a Judicial Magistrate has the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a ....
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
