8. Following the aforesaid precedent, it was held in Ritesh Sinha that despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation for a crime. We specifically note that this Court had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed the words ‘a person’, consciously because the Rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an accused or a witness. It was also directed that till explicit provisions are incorporated in the Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate will be so empowered by virtue of the said judgment. The issue was also pending with the Government and with the advent of the BNSS, it has been specifically incorporated under Section 349.

9. We need not hence consider the question as to whether it is the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS which would be applicable to the present case. If it is the Cr.P.C., the three Judge Bench decision in Ritesh Sinha permits the same on the identical principle adopted by this Court in Kathi Kalu Oghad to permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions. The said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology. If it is the BNSS that is applicable, then there is a specific provision enabling such sampling. The reasoning was also that mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such. It would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination.