Right to be heard during investigation is absent; challenge to overseas forensic examination failed in principle.

An accused has no right to be heard at the investigation stage, and a direction for further forensic examination abroad cannot be faulted on that ground. The prosecution and investigating agency may carry out further investigation, and objections to the authenticity, admissibility, and evidentiary value of the material collected are matters for trial. Where investigators indicate the need for additional forensic testing, interference at that stage is unwarranted. The challenge to the direction for further examination was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to send material collected during investigation for examination in Canada and to await the report could be interfered with on the ground that the accused had not been heard and that the procedure did not conform to the requirements governing collection of evidence outside India.

Analysis: The Court held that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. It noted that the prosecution and investigating agency may undertake further investigation, and that the evidentiary value, admissibility, authenticity, and legal significance of the material collected can be tested only at trial. The Court also observed that the investigating authorities had indicated the need for further forensic examination and that interference at that stage would not be .

Conclusion: The challenge to the direction for further forensic investigation was rejected and the accused's objection was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused has no right to be heard during the investigation stage, and questions relating to the admissibility and evidentiary value of material gathered in further investigation are matters for trial.

---