Mohit Jha v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Mohit Jha ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, SPE: CBI: ACB Chennai, Crime No: RC 0322021 A0011 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Puducherry in MP.No.27 of 2025 in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2022 and dismiss the prosecution application seeking specimen voice of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.L Infant Dinesh For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Puducherry in M.P.No.27 of 2025 in

Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2022, thereby allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 349 of BNSS.

2.The petitioner is arraigned as the first accused in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2022 and is facing trial for the offences under Section 120 B IPC r/w 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. While pending trial, the respondent filed an application under Section 349 of BNSS to send an alleged conversation between the petitioner herein and one Joshua Ananth Kumar/complainant, which was recorded by the complainant in a Nokia phone, to the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS) Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, for comparison of the same with the voice of the accused/petitioner and also for directing the petitioner to give his voice sample before the said Laboratory. The said application was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that already the conversation was sent for forensic examination to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Chennai, which opined by opinion dated 25.11.2022 that the voice/conversation in the audio file was not audible clearly and that the conversation was between two male persons, who were speaking bilingually in Hindi and English. Therefore, it would amount to filling up the lacuna by sending the very same recorded conversation between two persons to the

Forensic Laboratory at Hyderabad. However, the petitioner has no objection to give his voice sample for expert opinion.

4.When the petitioner is ready and willing to give his voice sample, it would serve no purpose without comparing the same with the voice which was already recorded in the mobile phone. Though the conversation between the accused and complainant was sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department for comparison and it had opined that the conversation was not audible clearly, there is no prejudice caused to the accused if the same is sent to another laboratory for further examination. Further, without verifying the said conversation, it cannot be compared with the voice sample of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in MP.No.27 of 2025 and in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2022 and hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 03-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

TSG To 1.The Inspector of Police, SPE: CBI: ACB Chennai Crime No.RC 0322021 A0011.

2.The Special Judge, (PC Act), Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

03-06-2026