Allowed

Renjith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2018Crl.MC/187/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, noting that a decision allowing voice sample collection was no longer good law after Roopesh @ Praveen, quashed orders from the Judicial First Class Magistrate directing the accused to provide voice samples under Section 311A Cr.P.C. and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing the petitioners while permitting the investigating agency to pursue other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Annexure B order in Crl.M.C.No.187/2018 and Annexure A2 order in Crl.M.C.No.296/2018 are quashed; petitioners are granted relief.

Renjith Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 22ND POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 187 of 2018

¶6

---------------------CMP 18479/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, CHALAKUDY

¶7

----------

¶8

PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED :

¶9

---------------------

¶10

RENJITH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, PYNADATH HOUSE, VAPPALASSERY DESOM, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.RAJIT

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2018 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.296/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 187 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION IN CMP NO. 18479/2018 IN CRIME NO. 1229/2017 OF THE CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION.

¶21

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 01.01.2018 IN CMP NO. 18479/2018 OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, COURT CHALAKUDY.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶27

................................................................ CRL.M.C. Nos. 187 & 296 of 2018 ............................................................... Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2018

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

It was based on Pratap v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2017 (3) KLT 458], the learned Magistrate has passed an order to the accused to provide voice sample. It is a fact that the said decision was rendered not good law by the Division Bench of this Court in Roopesh @ Praveen v. Union of India [2018(1) KLT 23] .

¶30

In Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP and another [2013 (2) SCC 357], the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and others [AIR 1961 SC 1808] , and in a catena of decisions after that it has been consistently held that taking of these samples for aiding the investigation or trial are not violative

¶31

CRL.M.C.Nos. 187 & 296 of 2018

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and it cannot be considered as self-incriminating.

¶34

The said question also was considered in Ritesh Sinha( supra ). Over and above it, the question as to whether the Magistrate has power to direct the accused to furnish voice sample under Section 311A Cr.P.C. or under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was also considered. The two judges' Bench of the Apex Court took divergent views in the matter relating to the power of the Magistrate under Section 311A Cr.P.C. and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶35

Presently, the Division Bench of this Court has

¶36

also held in Ritesh Sinha (supra) that since the issue is pending consideration before the Apex Court, it shall be open for the investigating agency to approach the court below, if there is any change of circumstances.

¶37

Based on the decision of the Division Bench, this

¶38

Court is bound to quash Annexure B order in

¶39

CRL.M.C.Nos. 187 & 296 of 2018

¶40

-: 3 :-

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.187/2018 and Annexure A2 order in Crl.M.C.No.296/2018, with opportunity to the investigating officer to pursue appropriate remedies through other appropriate proceedings.

¶42

In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed and Annexure B order in Crl.M.C.No.187/2018 and Annexure A2 order in Crl.M.C.No.296/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy, in CMP No.18479/2018, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the investigating officer is at liberty to purse appropriate remedies through other appropriate proceedings.

¶43

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶44

ul/-

¶45

[True copy]

¶46

P.S. to Judge.

Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby E.N. Vs the Assistant Controller

Albert Vs State of Kerala

Binu G. Vs State of Kerala

Unni Vs State of Kerala

Raveendranathan Prabha Vs Enforcement Officer

Suneesh @ Kuttapayi Vs State of Kerala