Testing Voice Sample At Private Lab Affected Rights Of Accused: Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal In Bribery Case

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of an alleged demand for bribe, has held that the examination of a voice sample by a private laboratory instead of the designated government agency, and filing it as part of the chargesheet had affected the rights of the accused.

The Court also held that the continuation of the investigation after it was transferred to the Lokayuktha police station that had jurisdiction, without launching a fresh investigation, had led to procedural lapses that vitiated further proceedings.

It was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition against a Special Judge's Judgment discharging a police officer of charges of bribery. The case relates to an alleged demand for bribe by a police officer for the release of a vehicle seized during election time. 

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V Srishananda held, "Admittedly, the part investigation conducted by the Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Bengaluru Rural District was without jurisdiction. Therefore, a fresh investigation should have been conducted by the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura. Instead, the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura, continued with the investigation which was conducted in part by the Inspector Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District. Same has resulted in procedural lapses besides being the further proceedings thereof stood vitiated."

On the examination of voice samples by a private agency, the Court said, "It is pertinent to note that without exhausting the remedy before the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka, sending the voice sample to the Truth Labs, which is a private agency and collecting the report which is been placed as a gospel truth in filing the charge sheet has also resulted in affecting the rights of the accused. Therefore, the very cognizance itself should not have been taken by the learned Special Judge and charge sheet should have been returned."

Advocate Prasad B.S appeared for the Petitioner-State and Advocate M.B. Rajashekar appeared for the Respondent.

The allegation of the complainant was that a police officer had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 for the release of a vehicle seized during election time in 2014. Charges under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were filed against the police officer.

While discharging the accused, the Special Judge's Judgment noted that the complaint of bribery was filed in a Lokayuktha police station that did not have the jurisdiction of the alleged place of incident and the inspector there had proceeded to conduct a part-investigation before transferring the case to the one that had jurisdiction, where the officers continued with the part-investigation instead of launching it afresh.

It also noted that the alleged voice samples were referred to a private agency, instead of the Forensic Science Laboratory and filed with the chargesheet.

Upholding the Special Judge's Judgment, the High Court said, "This Court having regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction revisited into the above factual aspects and does not find any legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual defects so as to interfere with the impugned Order."

"Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any merit whatsoever in the grounds heard on behalf of the Lokayuktha." the High Court concluded.

Cause Title: State Of Karnataka v. G. Ramachari [Criminal Revision Petition 699 of 2017]

Click here to read/download the Order