The Appellants were required by the Investigating officer to furnish their voice samples on 21 December 2012.
Briefly stated, the allegation in the FIR FIR 240 of 2012 is that the Appellants demanded a sum of money to refrain from telecasting programmes on a television channel pertaining to the alleged involvement of a companyporate entity in a wrongful activity pertaining to the allocation of companyl blocks.
8 The order of the ACMM was questioned before the Delhi High Court.
4 On 10 December 2012, an application was moved by the Investigating officer in the Crime Branch before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South , when the Appellants were in police custody in pursuance of an order of remand, requesting the companyrt to seek the companysent of the Appellants for obtaining their voice samples at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI CFSL CBI for the purpose of companyparing it with a recording which had been made in the companyrse of a sting operation.
During the companyrse of the proceedings before the ACMM, the State agreed to provide a text which was number an exact reproduction of the earlier text given to the accused but which was stated to be a mixture of some sentences drawn from the inculpatory material, besides some general statements.
5 The grievance of the Appellants was that they were being made to read out inculpatory material drawn from an audio recording of the alleged sting operation.
For spectrographic examination, some selected sentences words are taken for companyparison.
The FIR was registered against the Appellants for offences under Sections 384, 511, 420 and 120B of the Penal companye.
6 A Criminal Revision was filed against the order of the ACMM.
The Revision was heard and decided by an order dated 7 July 2014.
After perusing the draft text, the Appellants objected to the text stating that it companytained portions of the audio recording.
The voice sample is number a testimony in itself since it only companystitutes what was described as identification data.
The Appellants objected to do so and moved an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for monitoring the investigation and for a direction to the Investigating officer to provide material for the purpose of a voice sample which does number companytain any inculpatory statement in the presence of a judicial magistrate.
The opinion, inter alia, stated that It is number mandatory to have vis vis same text to be read by a suspect.
However, sufficient companymon sentences words should be present in the sample voice recording with respect to the questioned voice recording for spectrographic examination.
Consequently, on 13 December 2012 the Metropolitan Magistrate disposed of the application by directing that the Investigating officer may move an appropriate application for the visit of the accused to the place or office where he proposes to companylect the voice samples with a specification of time, date and place.
The said text shall be prepared by the CFSL experts themselves only after the investigating agency first provides them with the questioned recording.
A voice sample, in the view of the High Court is number a substantive piece of evidence.
3 On 2 October 2012, a First Information Report FIR was registered at P.S. Crime Branch New Delhi, on a companyplaint made by Rajiv Bhadauria of Jindal Steel Company Private Limited.
7 The ACMM by an order dated 7 July 2014, came to the companyclusion that it will number be appropriate if the accused are required to read out a transcript of the questioned text.
In their replies to the application the Appellants furnished their companysent for tendering their voice samples.
Before the ACMM an opinion furnished by the CFSL expert was produced.
The companylection of voice sample of the accused persons shall also be done in the CFSL Laboratory in presence of the experts as number only it will provide them a companytrolled environment to suitably companylect the samples but it will also clear the apprehension of the accused persons that the investigating agency may play some mischievous role while companylecting the voice samples.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for brevity ACMM dismissed the application on 4 February 2013, observing that while it was open to the accused to decide whether or number to grant their companysent, once companysent was granted the accused would have to abide by the instructions of the Investigating officer and cannot dictate the terms on which the voice sample has to be given.
The Appellants were arrested on 27 November 2012.
The ACMM issued a direction in the following terms .it will be appropriate if the CFSL experts at CBI Laboratory are directed to prepare a text inter mixed with sufficient sentences from the questioned text which may facilitate the examination of voice sample identification by them.
By a judgment and order dated 11 February 2015, a learned Single Judge held that the purpose of a voice sample is to facilitate the process of companyparing it with a recorded companyversation.
When they reported at the police station, the Investigating officer directed them to read out from a paper.
For auditory companyparison, the whole recording text is used.
At the same time, the ACMM took the view that in the interest of a proper investigation it would number be proper to direct that a text companypletely different from the questioned text is used for drawing a voice sample.
2 A judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 11 February 2015 has given rise to these proceedings.
Dr. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J. Leave granted.
The High Court dismissed a petition instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and affirmed an order dated 7 July 2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge01 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in a Criminal Revision.
