Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Voice Test In Cheque Case, As Petitioner Failed To Link Chit-Fund Recording To The Dispute

The respondent initiated proceedings under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were numbered as C.C. No. 577/2017.

After evidence was led, the petitioner applied under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to have a defence witness’s voice sample compared with a recording on a CD produced by the accused with a Section 65B application.

The trial court rejected the application as irrelevant, noting that the petitioner had not disputed issuance of the cheque and that no conversation between the petitioner and the complainant required voice comparison; the revisional court affirmed that decision.

In the High Court, the petitioner produced a transcript said to concern chit-fund transactions. The Court found that it concerned a conversation with B. B. Rangaswamy and did not refer to the complainant or the cheque transaction.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits expert opinion on matters such as voice identification where expert assistance is relevant to an issue requiring determination; a forensic examination must serve a legitimate evidentiary purpose.

The Court also considered the proceedings under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in assessing whether interference was warranted.

No precedent was cited.

The proposed comparison concerned a recording of the petitioner speaking with a third party about chit-fund transactions. The transcript did not mention the complainant or the cheque, and the petitioner demonstrated no connection between that conversation and the transaction underlying the dishonoured cheque.

The Court therefore found no basis to regard voice analysis as relevant or necessary to adjudicate the complaint. Given the complaint’s lengthy pendency since 2017, permitting an examination without a demonstrated evidentiary nexus would serve no legitimate purpose and would further delay proceedings.

The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, payable to the respondent before the trial court within 30 days; the order further stated that, if unpaid, the trial court would be entitled to strike off the petitioner’s defence.