9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s still under investigation. His view has been upheld by the High Court. The State has preferred this appeal by Special Leave of this Court. 2. Shri O.P. Rana, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that Section 73 of the Evidence Act conferred ample power on the Magistrate to direct the accused to give his specimen writing even during the course of investigation. He also urged that it would be generally in the interests of the administration of justice for the Magistrate to direct the accused to give his specimen writing when the case was still under investigation, since that would enable the investigating agency not to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial or enquiry, if the disputed writing, as a result of comparis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written by such person. The clear implication of the words for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare is that there is some proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for the Court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of 'enabling the Court to compare' and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency 'to compare'. If the case is still under investigation there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t class: Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. Section 2(a) of the Act defines measurements as including finger impressions and foot print impressions . 6. There are two things to be noticed here. First, signature and writing are excluded from the range of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and, second, 'finger impression' are included in both Section 73 of the Evidence Act and Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. A possible view is that it was thought that Section 73 of the Evidence Act would not take in the stage of investigation and so Section 5 of the Identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d v. the State AIR1960Cal32 . (Mitter J., at page 32). and Priti Ranjan Ghosh and Ors. v. The State 77 C.W.N. 865 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dharamvir Singh v. State 1975 Crl. L. J. 884 (Pb. Haryana), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad v. The State AIR1957MP106 , the Orissa High Court in Srikant Rout v. State of Orissa 1972 (2) Cutt. W.R.1332 and the Allahabad High Court in the judgment under appeal. A contrary view was taken by the Patha High Court in Gulzar Khan and Ors. v. State AIR1962Pat255 and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Rami Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 1971 Crl. L.J.1591 (A.P.). We do not agree with the latter view. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and while d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
