ORDER

Shrivastava, J. -- 1. IA No.12586/2020, an application for amendment in the petition is allowed.

2. By this writ petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court dated 21.10.2020 whereby for the purpose of investigation permission has been granted to take the voice sample of the petitioner.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that such a direction violates the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and infringes the petitioner’s privacy. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2010 SC 1974. He has also submitted that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order.

4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the matter is at the investigation stage and the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is not violated and that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is an accused in a trap case and the voice sample of the petitioner is required to tally it with the recorded voice, hence the petitioner was given a notice to appear in the Office of the Collector and give his voice sample which was refused by him, therefore, the investigating agency had approached the trial Court and the trial Court after examining the entire case and the case diary has found that the voice sample of the petitioner is required, hence it has granted permission to the investigating agency to take the voice sample and directed the petitioner to give the voice sample.

6. Article 20 of the Constitution of India extends certain protection to a person in respect of the conviction for offence and sub-clause (3) thereof provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Article 20(3) reads as under :

“20(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The protection extended by Article 20(3) is only to the extent of being witness against himself. Thus, clause (3) of Article 20 extends protection against self incrimination to an accused person. Self incrimination is held to mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and it does not mean to include merely the mechanical process of producing document in the Court which may throw a light on any points of controversy but which does not contain any statement of accused based upon his present knowledge. Requiring an accused to give voice sample does not mean that he is asked to testify against himself. Voice sample is taken only for comparison. Hence, it cannot be said that when an accused is asked to give voice sample, he is compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore, fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is not violated in such a case.

7. The question relating to violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution came up before 11 Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 wherein the issue was about the specimen writing and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that --

“11. The matter maybe looked at from another point of view. The giving of finger impression or of specimen signature or of handwriting, strictly speaking, is not ",to be a witness". "To be a witness" means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant fact, by means of oral statements or statements in writing, by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a Court or to a person holding an enquiry or investigation. A person is said “to be a witness” to a certain state of facts which has to be determined by a Court or a