Back
AVNEESH JHINGAN
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J.(Oral) - This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 19.4.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby the petitioner was directed to give his voice sample. The revision petition is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the revision petition.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 20 dated 5.12.2019, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018) and Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order. It is submitted that order is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced and the order was passed at the back of the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel appearing on advance notice defends the impugned order.
5. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer res-integra. The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha ((2019) 8 SCC 1) held that the direction to give voice sample does not infringe article 20(3) of the Constitution of In
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 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 directive to provide a voice sample for comparison in a criminal investigation does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Compelling a voice sample for investigation is lawful, even if the accused is not in custody, as privacy rights yield to public interest.
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
