ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

1. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 21653 of 2018 are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in RC MA1 2017 A0009 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC r/w Section 7, 8 and 9 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed this petition to set-aside the order dated 12.03.2018, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 5849 of 2017.

2. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. Nos. 2580 & 2510 of 2019 are accused Nos. 1 & 3 in RC MA1 2018 A0008, for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 filed this petition to set-aside the order dated 25.01.2019, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 4773 of 2018.

3. Since the issues involved in all the above three cases are common, this Court takes up for consideration and disposal by common order.

4. The respondent/the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai has filed a petition under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil court, Chennai to direct the petitioners in the said crime to give specimen voice.

5. The sum and substances of the case is that the petitioners are the accused in the respective crime numbers. The interception of telephonic conversation between the accused persons revealed the conspiracy hatched between them in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe. Hence, it was necessary to take voice samples of the accused persons to be tested scientifically for the prosecution to compare with the voice record during interception of the calls. Hence, the petition under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent. The lower Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition. Against which the present Criminal Original Petitions.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific provision incorporated in Section 311-A of Cr.P.C., directing the petitioners to give voice samples to the investigation officer. Without any specific provision of law, directing the accused to give voice samples for spectrograph test is not proper. The respondent have no right to seek voice samples from the accused persons. He further contented that there is no power under Section 311-A, empowering the respondent to take voice samples and there is no accessory or incidental or even inherent powers available with the trial Court to direct giving of voice samples of the accused.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a false case has been foisted by the respondent without conducting proper enquiry and to strengthen the case, the respondent has chosen to file a petition to obtain the voice sample of the accused, which is illegal and arbitrary. After registering the case, to rectify their blunder the investigating officer has filed this petition which affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by the constitution. Any direction may be ordered the state of trial only by the trial Court and not during the investigation. He further submitted that collecting voice samples have been referred to larger bench of Supreme of Court of India and the same is pending.

8. The applications filed by the respondent before the trial Court are without any material and facts to make such a request. It is important that the prosecution must exhibit how the collection of voice samples advance the case of the prosecution. In the absence of factual details merely filing the application seeking for voice sample test cannot be entertained. The reason for seeking the voice sample cannot be a matter of speculation. In the absence of such facts, the accused persons cannot be compelled to give their voice sample.

9. Further the learned counsel f