1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 522 OF 2009 Shri Dipak Kumar ...Applicant Vs. The State Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police A.C.B., Tanna House, Mumbai ...Respondents Mr.B.B.Nangare i/b. B.B.Nangare & Associates for the Applicant Mr.S.R.Shinde with Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Advocate for the C.B.I. Mrs. A.A.Mane, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The only point to be considered in this application is whether the learned Magistrate, who granted the application of the Respondents directing the Petitioner herein to give his voice specimen sample to the Investigating Officer is illegal. The Petitioner s Advocate relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu Misra A.I.R. 1980 S.C 791. It has been followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Bisht Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2007, MANU, Delhi 338 holding that the accused being ordered or directed to give handwriting 2 for comparison or the voice specimen during investigation would be a witness against himself, despite the provisions of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C, which came to be incorporated by way of an amendment under the Act with effect from 26th June 2006. 2.The fact remains that under Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C the Magistrate has the power to order a person to give specimen signatures and handwriting to the Investigating Officer upon an application in that behalf being made during the investigation. This Court has considered this aspect in Criminal Revision Application No.677/2008 by an order dated 26th June 2009 passed when Section 311-A was on the Statute book. In that case the investigation required the voice specimen as well as the handwriting specimen to be given. The Court after considering various judgments including the case of Ram Babu Misra (supra) and Rakesh Bisht(supra) concluded that lending of voice sample would not tantamount infringement of the lender. The Respondent giving the voice specimen cannot be a witness against himself. This aspect was considered in the judgments of 2 Constitutional Benches of the Apex Court in the case of M.P.Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra A.I.R 1954 S.C. 3007 and State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1961(2) Cr.L.J. 856. 3.It is argued by the Petitioner s Advocate that in view 3 of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C only the specimen signatures and handwriting can be ordered to be given and not the voice specimen. 4.The purpose and reasoning for obtaining the specimen signature, handwriting or the voice specimen is the same. The observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments is that the fundamental rights granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India cannot be infringed if a person is directed to give any specimen on the analogy that even the identification parade would otherwise inculpate him. Therefore, the reasoning of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.677/2008 has to be accepted and I find no reason to defer from the same. On the same analogy as required in case of specimen signatures and handwriting any other specimen can be directed to be given. 5.It may be mentioned that it would only aid the investigation. Any person required for investigation of a case, such as the Petitioner, is required to co- operate with the investigating agency. He may then show on merits as to how he could not be implicated upon the evidence gathered. There is no reason, therefore, not to allow the investigation to proceed as it requires. Hence the order of the Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The observation of this 4 Court dated 26th June 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.677/2008 squarely applies to this case also. 6.The Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)