Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 49128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-2867/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.K. Handoo, Yoginder Handoo, Gaurav Vishwakarma
For the Respondents: Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar Rana

Providing voice samples for investigation does not constitute testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Judicial Magistrates are empowered to order such sampling to aid investigation, regardless of whether specific statutory provisions exist in the Cr.P.C. or are codified in the BNSS.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 and 311-A - Constitution of India - Articles 20(3) and 21 - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 349 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 65-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 8, 9, and 13 - Direction to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted conversations - Right against self-incrimination - Providing voice samples, specimen handwriting, or finger impressions does not amount to "testimonial compulsion" as they are considered material evidence and not oral or documentary testimony (Paras 22, 33, 34).

(B) Power of Magistrate to order sampling - In the absence of explicit provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to order a person to provide a voice sample for the purpose of investigating a crime. This power is recognized through judicial interpretation to fill legislative gaps and is now explicitly codified in Section 349 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Paras 29, 30, 35).

(C) Admissibility of electronic evidence - Challenges regarding non-compliance with surveillance guidelines or the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act are matters of trial. Such issues cannot be pre-judged during the investigation stage to deny the collection of evidence, as doing so would amount to conducting a mini-trial (Paras 40-42).

Facts of the case:
An investigating agency registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on intercepted telephonic conversations. The Special Judge directed the petitioner to provide voice samples for comparison with the intercepted calls through spectrographic analysis. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that it violated the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, and that the order was unauthorized due to a lack of specific statutory provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, it was argued that the source material was inadmissible due to the lack of certification under the Evidence Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the direction to provide a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution as it is not testimonial. The right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to legitimate state interests like crime investigation, especially when safeguards are in place. The Magistrate is fully empowered to order voice sampling to aid investigation, and the authenticity of the source material is a matter for determination during the trial.

Issues: Whether the direction to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted calls constitutes testimonial compulsion violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution; whether a Magistrate has the authority to order voice sampling in the absence of specific provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and whether the inadmissibility of source material at the investigation stage precludes the collection of comparison samples.

Ratio Decidendi: Voice samples are material evidence, not testimony, and thus their collection does not violate the prohibition against self-incrimination. Judicial Magistrates have the inherent and now codified power to order such samples to ensure effective investigation. The admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic records are to be decided at trial and cannot be used to block the collection of evidence during the investigation phase.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 3^rd November, 2025

Pronounced on: 24th December, 2025

+ CRL.M.C. 2867/2021 & CRL.M.A. 18029/2021

MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI

S/o. Abdul Majeed Qureshi

R/o. C-134 Defence Colony

New Delhi 110024 .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder

Handoo and Mr. Gaurav

Vishwakarma, Advocates

Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

CBI Building,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with

Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), for the quashing and setting aside of

the Impugned Order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (PC

Act) (CBI) in RC No. 224 2017 A0001/CBI/AC-VI/SIT, whereby the

Petitioner is directed to provide his voice samples for verification and

comparison with certain intercepted telephonic conversations.

Signature Not Verified

DigitallySigned By:RITA CRL.M.C. 2867/2021 Page 1 of 13

SHARMA

Signing Date:27.12.2025

13:21:04

##PAGE2##

2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that between the period of 25.10.2013 to

23.12.2013 and 06.01.2014 to 06.03.2014, the Income Tax Department

intercepted telephonic conversations of Mobile Nos. 9810035614 and

9711305614, allegedly belonging to the Petitioner.

3. On 15.02.2014, the Income Tax Department conducted searches at the

premises of the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Directorate of Enforcement

(ED) filed a Complaint with the CBI on 31.08.2016, requesting the

registration of an FIR based on the said intercepted telephone recordings and

Blackberry Messenger (BBM) messages, alleging that the Petitioner was

acting as a middleman for certain public servants.

4. Consequently, the CBI registered the subject FIR No. 224/2017 A001

on 16.02.2017 under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 8, 9, and 13(2)

read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The Petitioner joined the investigation and appeared before the CBI

on multiple occasions in 2018. In March 2021, the CBI filed an Application

before the Ld. Special Judge seeking directions for the Petitioner to give

voice samples for comparison by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory

(CFSL) with the intercepted calls obtained from the Income Tax

Department.

6. The Ld. Special Judge, vide the Impugned Order dated 26.10.2021,

allowed the Application relying primarily on the judgment of the Apex

Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. , (2019) 8 SCC 1.

7. The Petitioner has assailed the Impugned Order on the grounds that

while Ritesh Sinha (supra) empowers a Magistrate to order voice sampling,

such power must be exercised strictly according to “procedure established

by law” under Article 21. The Petitioner submits that there is no “questioned

Signature Not Verified

DigitallySigned By:RITA CRL.M.C. 2867/2021 Page 2 of 13

SHARMA

Signing Date:27.12.2025

13:21:04

##PAGE3##

voice” seized from the Petitioner during the current investigation, to serve as

a basis for comparison.

8. The calls intercepted by the Income Tax Department in 2013-14

constitute “stale” material. Moreover, these intercepts were made without

complying with the mandatory guidelines issued by the Apex Court in

People‟s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC

301, and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules. No order of the Review

Committee validating the retention of these intercepts, has been produced.

9. Furthermore, the original recording devices or memory chips, have

not been seized or produced. The material constitutes secondary evidence

without a Certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act, making it inherently

inadmissible. Therefore, compelling a voice sample to compare with

inadmissible material, is an abuse of process.

10. Further, directing voice samples to compare with unverified,

potentially manipulated and illegally obtained intercepts, amounts to

testimonial compulsion and a fishing expedition by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document