Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhukar K. Farde, an Assistant PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer, was accused by the CBI of demanding a bribe of Rs.1,00,000 from Ms. Bharati Roy of M/s Vidya Industrial Services for releasing attachment of a shop and firm. He was caught red-handed accepting Rs.25,000 from the complainant through her advocate during a trap. The CBI recorded conversations between the accused, complainant, and advocate in the presence of panch witnesses and sealed the recordings. On 3/03/2011, the CBI called the petitioner, complainant, and witnesses to its office to give voice specimens for a voice spectrographic test by CFSL, New Delhi. The complainant and witnesses complied, but the petitioner refused. The CBI filed an application before the Sessions Court seeking a direction to the petitioner to give his voice sample. The petitioner opposed, arguing that it would compel him to give evidence against himself, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Sessions Judge allowed the application on 30/09/2011. The petitioner filed a criminal revision in the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel contended that such a direction cannot be issued during investigation and that it violates Article 20(3). The respondent's counsel argued that voice sample is a physical characteristic, not a statement, and is permissible under Section 311A CrPC. The High Court held that giving a voice sample does not amount to testimonial compulsion and is not violative of Article 20(3). The court noted that voice sample is akin to handwriting or signature sample, which are physical characteristics. The court also observed that Section 311A CrPC specifically empowers a magistrate to direct any person to give voice sample during investigation. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Sessions Judge's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Voice Sample - Section 311A CrPC - Article 20(3) Constitution of India - Direction to accused to give voice sample during investigation does not amount to testimonial compulsion - Court held that giving voice sample is a mere physical characteristic and not a statement, hence not violative of Article 20(3) - The application for voice sample was allowed by the Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether directing an accused to give a voice sample during investigation violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and whether such direction can be issued at the stage of investigation.
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 30/09/2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.38/2011 is upheld.
Law Points
- Voice sample collection does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution
- Section 311A CrPC permits voice sample during investigation
- No testimonial compulsion in giving voice sample
