1. This petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases in Crl.M.P.No.5647/2011 dated 12.09.2011, arising out of the petition filed by the Investigating Officer to direct the accused person to give his specimen voice for comparison.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the second accused in the case registered by CBI in connection with the trap proceedings. The petitioner is alleged to have involved in offering bribe of Rs. 50,000/- to one Andasu Ravindar (A-1) Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai to do undue favour in respect of his concealed income. The interception of telephonic conversation between the accused persons have revealed the conspiracy hatched between them in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe. Hence, the prosecution to compare the voice recorded during the investigation wanted the sample voice of the petitioner to be tested scientifically. The trial court allowed the petition and permitted the investigating officer to record the sample voice of the petitioner and others. Accordingly, the voice samples were also drawn pursuant to the trial court order.

3. This Criminal Revision Case is filed, challenging the trial court order permitting the prosecution to compel the accused to undergo voice spectrograph test. The prime submission made in this revision petition is that, compelling an accused to give his voice sample for comparison is unconstitutional. Ultra vires to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. No law provides for drawing samples. In such circumstances, without any authority of law, Magistrate directing the prosecution to record voice sample of the accused person is illegal. Further, In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ritish Sinha case, wherein, the learned Judges due to difference of opinion regarding the constitutional validity of drawing voice sample had referred the matter to the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pending. In such circumstances, the order passed by the trial court granting permission to the investigating officer to take voice sample is ultra-vires to the constitution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though law does empowers the Magistrate to grant direction to give voice sample of the accused, unmindful of that, the trial Court referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Selvi reported in (2010 (7) SCC 263) (hereinafter referred to as the Selvi case) had allowed the petition on the ground that the judgment in Selvi case pertains to Narco Analysis, polygraph test, and brain mapping. Drawing voice sample was not the subject matter, hence, it is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, the trial court relying upon R.M.Malkani -vs- State of Maharahtra reported in (AIR 1973 SC 157) had allowed the petition erroneously holding that, the nature of obtaining the voice samples is nothing but obtaining specimen signatures, as contemplated under Section 311 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to this impugned order, the accused was forced to give his voice sample and the same has been recorded against his consent.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent to this impugned order (12.09.2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritish Sinha v. State of U.P reported in (2013 (2) SCC 357) (hereinafter referred to as the Ritish Sinha case ), the Constitutional validity of compelling the accused to give voice sample came up for consideration, the learned Judge disagreed with each other and had referred the matter for larger Bench and the same is pending. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5647 of 2011, dated 12.09.2011 is liable to be set aside.

6. This Court is concerned about the nagging issue not only to this State but to the entire country, since the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not yet passed for the reference made in