HC Rejects Advocates Plea in Corruption Case Involving Voice Sample Evidence:

HC Rejects Advocates Plea in Corruption Case Involving Voice Sample Evidence The applicant, Sachin s/o Chandramani Wankhede, an advocate by profession, approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him on the basis of a complaint filed by Dr. Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe, a dentist. The complaint, routed through the Anti Corruption Bureau, alleged that the applicant had acted as a middleman or facilitator in a corruption-related matter punishable under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution claimed that he was actively involved in negotiations linked to the alleged illegal gratification. During the course of investigation, the applicant’s voice samples were collected and examined. The forensic analysis reportedly matched his voice with recorded conversations obtained during the probe, which, according to the prosecution, indicated his involvement in the alleged acts. Relying on this material, the investigating agency asserted that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant, leading him to seek quashing of the proceedings before the High Court.

Issue Raised: Whether criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be quashed when prima facie evidence, including voice analysis, indicates abetment by the accused advocate.

HC Held: The High Court refused to interfere and dismissed the application, holding that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the case. It noted that the forensic voice analysis, which matched the applicant’s voice with the recorded conversations, provided a significant link connecting him to the alleged offence. At this stage, the Court observed, it is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence but only to see whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case.

The Court further clarified that merely being an advocate does not grant immunity from prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the role attributed to the applicant falls within the scope of “abetment” under Section 12, he can be proceeded against in accordance with law. It also observed that the correctness of charges and applicability of specific provisions can be examined at the stage of framing of charges. Finding no grounds to quash the proceedings, the Court allowed the prosecution to continue.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below