HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 535/2021

Ankit Khandelwal S/o Nand Kishore, Aged About 30 Years, R/o

Maruti Colony Dausa, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Aradhna Swami

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ganesh Saini, AGC

Ms. Priya, C.I., ACB, Jaipur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

Order

02/08/2021

1.

This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed against the order

dated 15-2-2021 passed by the Revisional Court—Sessions Judge,

Dausa in Cr.Revision Petition No.9/2021, Ankit Khandelwal Vs.

State of Rajasthan, whereby revision petition filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 29-1-2021 passed by Judicial

Officer, Gram Nyayalaya Dausa directing the petitioner to give

voice sample in FIR No.362/2019 at Police Station CPS, ACB Jaipur

for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

(Amended) Act, 2018 has been dismissed.

2.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the

material made available on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya as well as learned Sessions Judge

have erred in arriving at the conclusion that the accused of any

(2 of 3)

[CRLW-535/2021]

offence can be compelled to give his voice sample, because such

direction would be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of

India. It has been further contended that a wrong finding has also

been recorded that the admitted voice recording is already

available with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Therefore, the

impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 26-7-2021, Investigating

Officer, Ms. Priya, Circle Inspector, ACB, Jaipur is present in

person, who submits that despite clear directions, the petitioner is

not coming forward to give his voice samples for comparison,

which is essential in reaching to the right conclusion in the matter.

5.

Learned AGC has vehemently opposed the petition with the

submission that the directions to give voice sample during the

course of investigation does not violate fundamental right of the

accused as the same is not self incriminating.

6.

Heard. Considered.

7.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, this

court finds that learned Revisional Court has categorically dealt

with all the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and on the

basis of the verdict in Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

[(2019)8 SCC 1], Rabindra Kumar Bhalotia Vs. State [Cr. Revision

No.808, 816, 823 of 2015, M.P. No.1 of 2015 decided on 28-11-

2017], A.K. Pratap Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018)1

Crimes 282], State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC

1808], Daisy M.P. Vs. State of Kerala [2020 SCC Online Ker 1694],

Sahiram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-7-2020, has

rightly concluded that directing the petitioner to provide his

specimen voice sample for comparison is not the testimonial

(3 of 3)

[CRLW-535/2021]

compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the

petitioner can be directed to give voice sample for comparison

with the disputed voice to reach to the right conclusion in the

matter under investigation. The contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is not factually correct that the Nyayadhikari has

opined the admitted voice of the accused petitioner is available

with the ACB, rather it has been noted in the impugned order that

the voice sample is required for comparison with the disputed

voice. Thus, this court does not find any reason to interfere with

the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

8.

Interim application stands dismissed.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J

Arn/30