The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has noticed in a corruption case that the authorities ought to first get the voice pattern in query examined on the state forensic laboratory earlier than sending it for evaluation to a non-public agency.
The order was handed on December 6 by a bench comprising Justice Srishananda whereas dismissing a petition filed by the Lokayukta police difficult a 2016 order discharging corruption expenses towards a authorities official. The order was made out there this week.
The case pertains to a criticism that the accused officer allegedly demanded a bribe for the discharge of a non-public car throughout 2014 Common Elections. The investigation was later transferred to the Lokayukta police at Chikkaballapura. Because the bribery lure within the case was unsuccessful, the police filed a chargesheet based mostly on eyewitness statements.
The Excessive Court docket famous that there have been problems with jurisdiction within the case because the occasion had occurred within the jurisdiction of the Chikkaballapura Lokayukta police, including that at most a Zero First Data Report (FIR) must have been registered and the case instantly transferred. It added that since a partial investigation had been carried out with a station with out jurisdiction, a contemporary investigation must have begun at Chikkaballapura.
The bench added, “it’s discovered from the information that the alleged voice pattern was not referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory of Karnataka. As an alternative, the mentioned pattern has been despatched to a non-public laboratory…and a report has been obtained. It’s pertinent to notice that with out exhausting the treatment earlier than the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka, sending the voice pattern to….a non-public company and gathering the report which has been positioned as a gospel fact in submitting the cost sheet has additionally resulted in affecting the rights of the accused. Due to this fact, the very cognizance itself mustn’t have been taken…”
Having made these observations, the courtroom added that the earlier order discharging the accused didn’t appear to have any factual or authorized defect.
Why must you purchase our Subscription?
You need to be the neatest within the room.
You need entry to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t need to be misled and misinformed.
Select your subscription bundle
