Telangana High Court
Sri Thodeti Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.235 OF 2026
DATE:15.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Thodeti Satyanarayana and another
.....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana
.....Respondent
: 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 2 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026 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 3 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026 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.
4
SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026
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 1, 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 empower the Magistrate to direct an accused to provide such sample for the purpose of investigation. Hence, according to the respondent, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
1 2025 Livelaw (SC) 674 5 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026
7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it is evident that medical examination of an accused for the purpose of effective investigation of a criminal offence has been accorded wider meaning by virtue of amendment to the Explanation appended to Section 53 Cr.P.C. through Act No.25 of 2005, which came into effect from 23.06.2006. Further, under Section 311-A Cr.P.C., a Magistrate has been empowered to direct any person, including an accused, to give specimen signatures or handwriting for the purposes of investigation or proceedings under the Code.
8. The contention of the petitioners that there is no statutory provision empowering the Court to direct collection of voice samples is untenable, inasmuch as Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, expressly empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to order any person, including an accused or witness, to provide voice samples, fingerprints, or handwriting for the purposes of investigation. Therefore, when there exist an express statutory provision authorizing the collection of voice samples, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Collection of voice sample constitutes material evidence and does not amount 6 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026 to testimonial compulsion. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the present revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :15.04.2026 Rds