JUDGMENT :

1. The present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No.6, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.04 of 2014, Union of India through CBI Vs. Shyam Sunder Prasad, arising out of RC No.0062014(A)0015, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow, whereby the learned trial court has allowed the Application No.B-28 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( for short ‘CBI’) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Sri Mahesh Kumar Jain to give evidence in respect of the electronic evidence as Smt. Manisha Kulshreshta, who prepared paper Nos.B-22/1 to B-22/4, is not living in India now and directed for calling Sri Mahesh Kumar Jain as a witness to prove the said documents.

2. The facts, in brief, are that a written complaint was received by the CBI, Lucknow from Sri Kaleem Ahmad on 23.4.2014 regarding demand of illegal gratification by the revisionist. Sri Kaleem Ahmad had taken a Cash Credit Loan of Rs.80,00,000/-from Punjab National Bank, Dhangata, Sant Kabir Nagar. Some cheques of this account got dishonored. The complainant approached the revisionist, who was posted as Branch Manager, and inquired about dishonoring of his cheques despite availability of Cash Credit Loan amount in his account. The revisionist told the complainant that his account was frozen and it would not be de-freezed until he gave him Rs.80,000/- as bribe. The complainant requested the revisionist to reduce the bribe amount and the revisionist agreed to accept a bribe of Rs.50,000/-by cheque from the complainant for de-freezing his account.

3. The CBI after verifying the complaint, registered an FIR against the revisionist under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act on 26.4.2014. A trap was laid on 26.4.2014 by the team of the CBI. The team was accompanied by the complainant along with two independent witnesses. The revisionist was caught red handed with tainted bribe cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/-received from the complainant for de-freezing his Cash Credit Loan account.

4. The CBI sent the CDs containing conversation recorded between the complainant and the revisionist and their specimen voice collected during pre and post trap proceedings of the case for examination by the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi ( for short ‘CSFL’) on 5.5.2014. The CFSL prepared the report dated 13.6.2014, which was brought on record by the CBI before the trial court. The said report was prepared by Smt. Manisha Kulshreshtha, Senior Scientific Officer, GR.II (Phy)-cum-Chemical Examiner, CFSL. The result of the examination would reveal that the questioned voices and the specimen voice of the revisionist were similar. The said report stated “hence, the voices marked exhibits ‘Q-1(P)’, & ‘Q-2(P)’ are the probable voice of the persons (Shri Shyam Sundar Prasad) whose specimen voice is marked exhibit ‘S-1(P)’.”

5. An application on behalf of the CBI under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 2.6.2022 before the trial court with request to allow Sri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Phy), CFSL as prosecution witness in place of Smt. Manisha Kulshreshta, who had prepared the CFSL report, as she is residing abroad and immediate examination of her is not possible. The revisionist filed an objection on 10.8.2022 that the substitute voice examiner could not be examined as he had not conducted the examination of electronic evidence related to the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist also argued that the CSFL was not a notified organization/laboratory by the Central Government under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and, therefore, the test report allegedly released by Dr. Manisha Kulshreshta was not consistent with Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the trial court rejected the objection and allowed t