By – Poorva Singh
The Kerala high court in the case of Mahesh Lal N.Y v. the State of Kerala has adjudicated that obtaining a voice sample from accused consent is not necessary as there is no violation of Article 20(3).
While sending off a petition pleading that the accused was not given the chance of being heard before have got to produce the voice sample Honourable Mr. Justice R Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused had got no dibs in the matter that he got no choice because it has already been established that obtaining voice samples, for the matter of comparison, of the accused. Does not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
While investigating the case Mahesh Lal N.Y v. the State of Kerala the inquiry commissioner court and the special judge sent ordered the petitioner to appear at the studio for a sample recording of voice.
The petitioner clanging the notice move towards high court under section 482 of code of criminal procedure 1973 for ending call forth all proceeding firmed on it.
Advocates Shabu Sreedharan, Meenu Thampi, Amal Stanly, Shyam Kumar M.P and Anisa Andrews appeared for the petitioner challenged the notice on two grounds in the high court that the order to petitioner violates his protected guaranteed right under Article 20(3) of the constitution and that order was passed without giving the petitioner the chance of being heard.
The court says that the first issue does not stand a chance referring to supreme court judgment given in Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh distinctly establish order to accuse to give voice sample does not violate article 20 (3) and because it does not violate any right consent for same is also not required.