IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 29.07.2025 KARAM SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for quashing of the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) filed by the prosecution for obtaining voice samples of the petitioner has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.11 dated 31.05.2019 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Vigilance Bureau Range, Range Jalandhar came to be registered against the petitioner (accused). He was granted the concession of bail. Subsequent thereto, the prosecution moved an application dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur seeking permission to take the voice samples of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply (Annexure P-3) stating that he did not wish to give his voice samples as the police had obtained his voice recordings by force.

3. The said application came to be disposed off and dismissed in view of the fact that the accused was not ready to give his voice samples vide order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-5).

4. Thereafter, the prosecution filed another application dated 10.01.2023 with a similar prayer. In the said application, the Inspector of the Vigilance Bureau Unit, Hoshiarpur averred that as the challan was to be presented against the petitioner sanction was sought. The administrative department of the petitioner raised some objections one of which was that the petitioner had told the head of the administrative department that the application seeking his voice sample had been rejected by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 20.11.2019 whereas the petitioner himself had refused to give his voice sample. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Ritesh Sinha Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 952 the Court could issue a direction to an accused person to give his voice sample. The copy of the said application dated

27.05.2025 is attached as Annexure P-6 to the instant petition.

5. The petitioner filed a reply stating that the first application had been dismissed on 20.11.2019 vide order (Annexure P-5) after the judgment in Ritesh Sinha (supra) had been passed on 02.08.2019. The sanction had been declined under Section 19 of the P.C. Act and therefore, as proceedings could not continue the said application was liable to be dismissed. The copy of the reply is attached as Annexure P-7 to the instant petition.

6. The Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-8) allowed the prayer of the prosecution for taking voice samples while relying on the judgment in Ritesh Sinha (supra).

7. The aforementioned order is under challenge in the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one single argument that the impugned order could not have been passed in view of the bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C. as per which review or recalling of an order was impermissible. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hari Singh Mann Versus Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal)

650

9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) only dismissed an interlocutory application seeking voice samples and the said order did not amount to either a judgment or a final order disposing off a case. Thus, the Court was well within its powers to direct the petitioner to give his voice samples.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. In Ritesh Sinha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-