Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this case has called in question the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.2838/2010. The order of the learned Magistrate reads thus: “The accused is directed to give his voice sample recording on the next date of hearing. The I.O. is directed to make arrangements for obtaining voice recording of the accused, before the court, on the next date of hearing.” This order has been challenged by this petitioner before the learned Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.25033/2011 and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 20.07.2011 has rejected the revision petition filed against the order of the learned Magistrate. 2. Heard Sri. G. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the respondent State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court cannot direct further investigation after the charge sheet is filed and he relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 (1) SCC 361 – Randhir Singh Rana Vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein, it is held as follows:- “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 156(3), 173(8), 190, 200 and 204 – A Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of police report and after appearance of the accused, cannot order of his own further investigation in the case – Order of the Magistrate directing further investigation set aside with a direction to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of the material already on the record – If the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible.” Hence, he pray for allowing the petition. 4. Learned HCGP submits that in this case, the Investigating Officer has filed an application on 19.07.2010 requesting the Court to permit the Investigating Officer to record the voice of the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the same with the C.D., which has already been produced by the complainant and subjected to P.F.No.106/2009. The said application is filed seeking further investigation into the matter. The order now challenged has been passed on 09.03.2011. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed on 27.03.2011, subsequent to the said application. The said application is filed seeking further investigation into the matter. The order now challenged has been passed on 09.03.2011. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed on 27.03.2011, subsequent to the said application. Hence, he submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate in permitting the Investigating Officer to record the voice of the petitioner, since it is essential in the just decision of the case. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have gone through the materials on record. On a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, it is seen that the order of the Supreme Court indicates that the learned Magistrate on his own directed for further investigation and therefore, the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case on hand. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, as the application is filed before the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to submit himself to record the voice in order to compare to the voice already recorded, is neither illegal or perverse. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to present himself before the Court for complying the orders of the learned Magistrate failing which learned Magistrate is at liberty to take suitable steps in accordance with law.