: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2025 in Crime No.03/RCT-CIU/2024 by the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, 2nd Floor, CBI Courts Building, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case arises out of Crime No.03/RCT-CIU/2024 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Central Investigation Unit, Hyderabad, against accused Officer No.1, a Mandal Revenue Officer, and accused No.2, a private driver, in connection with alleged offences under investigation. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, ACB, filed a memo seeking permission to obtain voice samples of the accused persons for the purpose of comparison with previously recorded audio evidence. The trial Court, having considered the said memo, allowed the same and directed both accused to appear before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, on 10.03.2026 at 10:30 a.m. to provide their voice samples for analysis and submission of report. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of trial court directing the accused to give voice samples is illegal and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as it amounts to self-incrimination. He further submitted that compelling the accused to provide voice samples for comparison in an ACB case is unsustainable in law, as the prosecution must establish its case independently without seeking assistance from the accused. He contended that the case is still at a pre-charge sheet stage and the trial court has mechanically allowed the request of investigating agency without assigning proper reasons or obtaining the consent of the accused, which is mandatory for such tests. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the order passed by the trial court is lawful and necessary for the purpose of effective investigation, as the voice samples are required for comparison with recorded conversations to establish the involvement of accused. He contended that obtaining voice samples does not amount to testimonial compulsion or violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and such procedures are permissible under law. He contended that the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the principal contention of the petitioners is that the trial Court, without any statutory sanction, mechanically allowed the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking collection of the voice sample of petitioners, and that such direction amounts to testimonial compulsion, thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amlesh Kumar V The State of Bihar, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 674, wherein it was observed that an accused may voluntarily undergo narco-analysis test during the stage of trial, subject to the approval of the Court, free consent, and adherence to appropriate safeguards. However, the respondent contended that there exists a statutory provision enabling collection of voice samples from an accused and that Sections 53-A and 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowe