Judicial Magistrate Must Be Able To Order Voice Sample For Investigation: SC
The court said despite absence of provisions in CrPC, a judicial magistrate must be conceded the power to order voice sample for investigation of crime.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : October 13, 2025 at 9:08 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said a judicial magistrate must be given the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime, despite absence of explicit provisions in CrPC.
The judgment was delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran. The bench said, “It was held in Ritesh Sinha (2019) that despite absence of explicit provisions in CrPC, a judicial magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime”.
The bench said it specifically notes that this court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words ‘a person’, consciously because the rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness.
“It was also directed that till explicit provisions are incorporated in the CrPC, the judicial magistrate will be so empowered by virtue of the said judgment. The issue was also pending with the government and with the advent of the BNSS, it has been specifically incorporated under Section 349”, said the bench.
The bench said it does not require to consider the question as to whether it is the CrPC or the BNSS which would be applicable to the present case. The bench said if it is the CrPC, the three judge bench decision in Ritesh Sinha permits the same on the identical principle adopted by this court in Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) to permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions.
“The said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology. If it is the BNSS that is applicable, then there is a specific provision enabling such sampling. The reasoning was also that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such”, said the bench.
The bench said it would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination.
The apex court allowed an appeal filed by Rahul Aggarwal against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the judicial magistrate's order to a person to give a voice sample in case of extending threat to a witness in a criminal case.
“We hence do not find any reason to uphold the impugned order and set it aside. The 2nd respondent shall act in accordance with the order passed by the magistrate. The appeal is hence allowed reversing the order of the high court and restoring that of the magistrate”, said the apex court.
Also Read
