dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2699 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2699 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2699 OF 2008 Mr.Anil Sharma Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Pranan Badneka i/by Mr.Gaurav Belosay for the petitioner. Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. In this petition a notice issued to the petitioner has been challenged on the ground that investigation is pending for almost two years and after the accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, a condition was imposed that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer after a particular date. He appeared, but even after that date he was called often for investigation and even a voice of the petitioner was recorded for being compared with some other conversation. Now, by the letter dated 3.12.2008 the petitioner was asked to appear before the Anti Corruption Bureau Office within a week for recording voice sample. He has been also informed that if he fails to remain present or do not cooperate with the investigation, the matter will be brought to the notice of the Special Sessions Court, ( 2 ) Mumbai for cancellation of bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had a right to refuse providing his voice but he has already done so voluntarily and provided his voice for being recorded by the Investigating Officer. No reasons have been given in the said letter as to why they need a fresh sample of the voice of the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has shown us a letter received by the Investigating Officer from Assistant Chemical Analyser to Government, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai. The Laboratory found that the specimen voice sample of speaker was defective, ambiguous and misleading. Therefore, the Laboratory wanted a fresh specimen. 4. Since the reasons have not been stated in the said letter and the petitioner maintain that he has a right to silence, therefore, we feel that the letter issued by the respondents cannot sustain as it does not disclose any reason for recalling the petitioner for recording of the voice. Therefore, the letter impugned in this petition is quashed. However, the respondents shall have an opportunity to issue fresh ( 3 ) letter, if they so desire seeking the presence of the petitioner after giving reasons. If any such letter is issued by the respondents to the petitioner, the petitioner will have all the rights available to him in law which he may later to agitate. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that we have only noted the submissions of the respective parties of this petition, but have not considered the submissions. Therefore, any observation made in this order will not be taken as an expression of opinion by this Court, particularly on the issues involving a right of person to speech and silence. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)