Accused can't be subjected to voice test in absence of rules:

In a judgement that can have far- reaching implications, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be subjected to voice spectrography test in absence of any provision for it.
The court also directed the state to immediately frame rules in this regard if it wants to subject an accused for voice spectrography tests.
Justice J B Pardiwala held that "in the absence of any provision empowering the police officer or the court, it is not permissible to subject an accused to the voice spectrography test."
The ruling implies that a sting operation or telephone conversation recording cannot be considered as evidence against the accused, if he denies to undergo a voice spectrography test.

The matter pertains to petitioner Natvarlal Devani, who worked as the superintendent of the prohibition and excise directorate in Kutch district.
Devani had demanded Rs 4,000 as bribe for renewing liquor permit of a complainant. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) sleuths nabbed him and demanded his voice spectrography test to establish his involvement based on telephonic conversations.

While rejecting voice spectrography test for the accused, the court added that the state government is empowered to frame rules including the test, as a nature of "measurements" under Evidence Act, 1920.
"The state government should consider framing appropriate rules in this regard and explore the possibility of including voice sample as one of the measurements that can be done of accused in the course of investigation. The government should consider this at the earliest," Pardiwala said in the order that was passed on January 18 and was made available yesterday.

Devani's counsel B M Mangukiya, while arguing against compelling his client to undergo voice spectrography test, said if it falls within the ambit of psychiatric examination, then no psychiatric examination can be taken without the consent of the accused.
Justice Pardiwala also rejected the argument observing that voice spectrography does not fall under the ambit of psychiatric examination.
Government pleader Mitesh Amin during the course of argument submitted that voice recorded in the audio CD is admissible under section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and therefore, securing voice sample of an accused by trial court becomes essential to arrive at the just decision in a case.

He further submitted that a court has the power to direct the police to take voice spectrography test under Section 165 of the Evidence Act if the trial judge is of the opinion that voice sample is necessary to discover the relevant facts.