Karnataka High Court
Sri Keshavamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.900 OF 2018
BETWEEN
Sri. Keshavamurthy
Aged about 58 years,
S/o. Late Changiah,
R/at No.53, Maruthi Nilaya,
III Cross, III Main, I Stage,
Kirloskar Colony,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru-560079.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Ravi B. Naik, Sr. Counsel for
Ms. Vijetha R. Naik, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
By its Anti Corruption Bureau,
By its Deputy Superintendent of Police
Shivamogga-577201.
...Respondent
(By Sri. B.N.Jagadeesh, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
set aside the order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the
2
Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at
Shivamogga in Spl.(PC)CR.No.345/2017.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Ravi B Naik, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.8.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Shivamogga, in Spl.(PC) CR. No. 345/2017 dismissing the application under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned senior counsel argues that the question is before the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Section 311A Cr.P.C. does not provide for collection of voice sample. This is a question to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore dismissal of the petitioner's application under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution suffers from legal infirmity. 3
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that this revision petition is not maintainable because much before the petitioner made this application under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, on 5.7.2017 itself, the Dy.SP of ACB submitted a requisition to the Court for collecting voice sample of the petitioner for being sent to expert's opinion. The petitioner did not challenge this order and subsequently he made the application under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Special Judge came to the conclusion that if this application was allowed it amounted to reviewing the order dated 5.7.2017. Therefore, the impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature and it cannot be challenged. He submits that collection of voice sample is not violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh [(2013) 2 SCC 357] has held that collection of voice sample is not violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. What is referred 4 to the larger Bench is whether in the absence of specific provision in Cr.P.C., voice sample can be collected? This question being referred to the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not disputed by either side. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that till the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives its verdict on this question, the investigation cannot come to a stand still. The voice sample of the petitioner can be collected, but it should not be made use of during trial. For these reasons, I come to the conclusion that this petition cannot be admitted. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. But it is made clear that the voice sample of the petitioner collected by the investigation officer shall not be made use of in the course of trial until the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives its decision.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl