Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 311a criminal procedure code in A.K. Pratap vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 July, 2017Matching Fragments
6. In the Gujarat decision cited by the learned counsel, the Gujarat High Court held that a direction to provide voice sample will not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. That part of the decision is against the petitioner. But the petitioner relies on the other limb of the decision, that when there is no provision anywhere authorising such a course, the accused cannot be directed to provide voice sample for comparison.
7. In Rakesh Bisht's case the Delhi High Court considered the legality of the direction of a subordinate court to provide voice sample for comparison. The prosecution relied on Section 311A Cr.P.C newly introduced in the Code. The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the trial court mainly on the ground that the impugned order was passed before the insertion of Section 311A in the Cr.P.C. However, incidentally, the Delhi High Court held that such a course cannot be authorised under Section 311A of Cr.P.C.
9. The question of legal authority for direction to provide voice sample for comparison now stands referred to a larger bench by the Hon'ble Supreme in Ritesh Sinha's case. However there is a clear observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court that though Section 311A of Cr.P.C may not be applicable, the court can exercise the ancillary or inherit powers for such a course, with the object of doing justice, or with the object of identifying the voice in question.
10. Section 311A was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure only with effect from 23.6.2006. This provision authorises orders directing the accused to provide specimen signatures or specimen handwriting for comparison as part of investigation. This was the issue that came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kathi Kalu's case. Anyway, now there is legislative sanction under Section 311A of Cr.P.C for directing the accused in criminal cases to provide specimen handwriting and specimen signature. If the law so authorises, and makes such direction legal, why cannot the court direct the accused to provide voice samples also, in exercise of its ancillary powers with the object of doing justice, or for the purpose of identifying the maker of the voice in question? If the accused in a criminal case can be directed to provide his handwriting or signature for comparison, there will be nothing wrong in directing the accused to provide his specimen voice also. Though there is no specific provision, the courts can make such orders in exercise of the ancillary or inherit powers in a situation where there is no specific prohibition in law. Thus I find that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the court below directing the accused to provide his voice sample.
11. The real legal effect and application, and also the spirit of Section 311A of Cr.P.C authorising collection of specimen handwritting and specimen signature can very well be applied in the case of voice samples also, though there is no specific provision on the subject, when there is no prohibition in law. Imbibing the spirit of Section 311A of Cr.P.C which was newly introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure I find that the court can apply or exercise its inherit or ancillary powers to give such directions, so long as such directions will not in any manner amount testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.