Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Shearing off the unnecessary details, the facts are that an FIR being II-C.R. No. 3001 of 2014, registered with Tarapur Police Station, District: Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is filed against the present applicant, for which, Criminal Case No. 129 of 2017 is registered in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarapur. In the said proceedings, the respondent - complainant filed an application, Exh. 99 under Section 173(8) CrPC seeking further investigation, to be precise, to take voice sample of the applicant - accused for voice spectrography. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 23.12.2020. The said order was the subject matter of revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 01.02.2021 allowed the said revision application, setting aside the order of learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the grieved applicant - accused is before this Court by this revision application.

5. As against this, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Amin for the respondent - State, while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, submitted that no error, much less, an error apparent is committed by the learned Sessions Judge, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant

- accused had abused and threatened to kill the original complainant and recordings are also available. In the circumstances, with a view to do the voice spectrography, voice sample of the applicant - accused is necessary, more particularly, with a view to do the complete justice. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant has dissented from giving his voice sample, which is crucial for the fair and impartial justice and accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order, which requires no interference in this revision and accordingly, it is urged that his application may be rejected.

R/CR.RA/164/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2022 5.1 In support, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 1 :

MANU/SC/1023/2019.

6. Having heard the rival submissions as also going through the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the material available on record vis-a-vis the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that prosecution moved an application Exh. 99 under Section 173(8) of the CrPC for further investigation, by collecting the voice sample of the applicant - accused and send the same for voice spectrography. It is pertinent to note that the said application has been moved by the prosecution at the stage when the trial has already commenced and admittedly, almost all the witnesses, except the investigating officer, have been examined and the trial is at its fag end. Further, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated 23.12.2020 dismissed the said application against which, revision application was moved by the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, who, by an order dated 01.12.2021 allowed the said revision and permitted further investigation. The said order of the learned Sessions Judge is the subject matter of this revision at the instance of the applicant - accused.