Back
AVNEESH JHINGAN
Swaran Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J - Aggrieved of order dated 14.6.2022 passed by Judge, Special Court SAS Nagar, directing the petitioner to give voice sample, the present petition is filed.
1. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.7 dated 8.4.2019, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 1988 Act') registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The petitioner was posted as SDO, Sub-Division Badali Ala Singh, P.S.P.C.L, District Fatehgarh Sahib. A complaint was filed by Inderjit Singh alleging that bribe of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by the petitioner for transfer of electricity connection of motor. The deal was struck for Rs.8000/-. On complaint, a trap was laid. The petitioner was apprehended red handed. As per the case set up, a voice recorder with memory card was handed over to the complainant for recording the conversation. The petitioner was arrested on 8.4.2019, he remained in remand of Vigilance Department for two days and thereafter in judicial custody for a month. On presentation of challan, the charges were framed. An application was filed by prosecution seeking permission to get voice sample
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the direction to give a voice sample did not violate the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, and the admissibility of e....
The right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest, and certification under Section 65-B of the Act is needed when the recording is to be produced in trial as evidence.
The fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. The admissibility of memory card evidence without certification under Section 65-B of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of recorded conversation and the power of the Court to obtain voice samples of the witnesses under Section 91 of the CrPC.
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 ruled that compelling voice samples for investigation does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
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
