S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) DURING the course of investigation in Crime No. 21 of 2001 of amangal Police Station, the Circle Inspector of Police, Amangal, filed a memo before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, kalwakurthi, asking for permission to take specimen signature and handwriting of the accused, being petitioner herein. The same has been opposed by the accused on the ground that the police has no right to insist for taking specimen signature in the presence of the Magistrate and sought for dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, the learned magistrate directed the accused to furnish handwriting and specimen signature for comparison before the Court for the purpose of investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this petition.

( 2 ) IT is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the court is not seized of the matter and it has no jurisdiction to compel the accused to furnish specimen signature before the court. It is also contended that the order passed by the Magistrate has to be quashed and placed reliance on the following decisions, namely. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791, State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 and State of Bombay v. Kathi kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.

( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor draws my attention to the Identification of prisoners Act 1920 and contends that the investigating officer can take finger impressions and foot impressions under section 4 of the said Act. It is also contended that it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be quashed, since the investigating officer has right to take specimen signatures and thumb impressions etc.

( 4 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, the short point that falls for consideration is whether the police can invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate during investigation for taking specimen signatures and handwritings. Section 2 (a) of the Identification of Prisoners act of 1920 defines measurements which include finger impressions and foot impressions. Section 4 of the said Act deals with taking of measurements etc. , of non-convicted persons. It reads as follows: (4) "any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police Officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner. "

( 5 ) IT is clear that the police are entitled to take measurements, which include finger impressions and foot impressions before the magistrate during investigation. It means the investigating officer, as a matter of right, invokes the provisions, which vests jurisdiction in the Magistrate of First Class and obtain measurements including photographs as can be seen from Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act.

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (supra), has observed at paras 24 and 25 as follows:"24. A sample writing taken by the Court under the second paragraph of Section 73, is, in substance and reality, the same thing as "admitted writing" within the purview of the first paragraph of Section 73, also. The first paragraph of the Section, as already seen, provides for comparison of signature, writing etc. , purporting to have been written by a person with others admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person. But it does not specifically say by whom such comparison may be made. Construed in the light of the English Law on the subject, which is the legislative source of this provision, it is clear that such comparison may he made by a Handwriting Expert (Section 45} or by one familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned (Section 47) or by the Court. The two paragraphs of the Section are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary to each other. 25. Section 73 is therefore to be read as a whole, in the light of Section 45. Thus read, it is clear that a Court holding an inquiry under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document