O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Thrissur city, who is the Investigating Officer in the special investigation team in crime 1229 of 2017 of Chalakudy police station.

2. That crime was registered initially under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act on getting information about missing of one Rajeev. On 29.09.2017, the 7th accused had made a telephone call to the Dy.S.P., Chalakudy, intimating that one Rajeev had fallen unconscious when the friends of the 5th accused used some force to get some documents executed. He also informed the Dy.S.P. that the 5th accused will contact him soon to provide more details. The police party reached the place and found the body of the said Rajeev and on that basis the crime was registered under Section 57 of the Police Act and thereafter, during the course of investigation, offences under Sections 364, 384, 302, 120B read with 34 IPC were made out and thus those Sections were incorporated. Accused Nos.1 to 4, who had allegedly killed the said Rajeev, were arrested on 30.09.2017. Later it came out that everything was done after hatching criminal conspiracy by accused Nos.5 to 7. Thus they were also arrested on various dates and later all of them have been granted bail.

3. During investigation it came out that the motive behind the murder of the said Rajeev was monetary deals between the 5th accused and the 7th accused. It was revealed that on the date of the death, that is on 29.09.2017 between 8:33 and 12:44 hours the 1st accused had made 20 calls to the 5th accused Johny. He also contacted the 7th accused 29 times between 8.38 and 23.15 hours on 29.09.2017; 23 times the 5th accused had contacted the 6th accused between 7.38 hours and 13.15 hours on the same day. According to the petitioner, analysis of call detail records also revealed that the 5th accused had visited Pariyaram, the place of occurrence, with the 6th accused, so many times previously to 29.09.2017 for executing the plan. The 5th accused along with the 6th accused also visited Chalakudy, a near place of Pariyaram on 29.09.2017 and the 6th accused after the murder of Rajeev. There were also ample details to show the tower locations of the conspirators which showed that these accused were together on various occasions. Thus the cell phone conversation records play a vital role in the proof of the charge. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy for taking voice samples of accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and

7 at All India Radio, Thrissur and for sending the same for analysis at Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Basing on the decision in Pratap A.K. and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2017 (3) KLT 458], by Annexure A order dated 01.01.2018 the learned Magistrate allowed the application. But the respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Cases before this Court. By Annexure B order, basing on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Roopesh @ Praveen v. Union of India [2017 (5) KHC 983], this Court set aside Annexure A order. In the said order it was made clear that the Investigating Officer is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies through other appropriate proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner moved Criminal M.C. 651 of 2018 seeking a direction to the accused persons and give voice samples of the respondents. But finding that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to issue direction to an Investigating Officer to take voice sample of an accused or to an accused to give his voice sample, this Court dismissed that application by Annexure C order. In the order it was made clear that provisions of the Cr.P.C. do not empower the Magistrate to issue such a direction and in the absence of such provision a direction cannot be issued invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. In Roopesh @ Praveen, quoted supra, the