JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral). - Aggrieved of the orders dated 30.10.2018 and 10.1.2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh and Sessions Judge, Mewat directing the petitioner to give voice sample, the present revision petition is filed.

2. The facts in brief are that the prosecution moved an application for taking voice sample of the petitioner which was allowed by the trial court. The petitioner made a statement that he had no objection in giving voice sample and that he shall appear before the laboratory as an when required by the police subject to reasonable prior notice. When the petitioner suffered the aforesaid statement before the trial court, he was assisted by his counsel. The aforesaid order was upheld in revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and infringes the right of privacy.

4. As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 'No person can be compelled to be a witness against himself'.

5. The issue raised by counsel for the petitioner is no longer res- integra. The Supreme Court in 'Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2019 (8) SCC 1, held that the directions to