Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, J.
SRI VINOD KUMAR S/O THIMMAPPA - Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE THROUGH YAPALADINNI POLICE STATION REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH - Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201543/2021
Decided On : 16-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE
For The Respondent: SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP

Point of Law: A specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions by themselves are no testimony at all being wholly innocuous because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of writing have been tampered with.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 20(3), 23 and 21 - Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 482, 437, 311A, 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 468, 470 and 471 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - Sections 5 and 6 - Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting - Case is that based on complaint, respondent police have registered case in Cr.for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC and FIR was submitted to Court and petitioner voluntarily surrendered before III JMFC Court, and enlarged on bail by accepting bail petition filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C - Whether both Courts have committed an error in invoking Section 311A of Cr.P.C., in directing accused to provide his specimen signature and hand writing and whether it violates Articles 21 and 20 (3) of Constitution of India as contended by petitioner’s counsel.
Finding of the Court:
Court in very same judgment held that testimony by an accused person may be said to have been self-incriminatory, compulsion of which comes within the prohibition, of constitutional provision, it must be of such a character, that by itself it should have tendency of incriminating accused, if riot also of actually doing so - It should be a statement which makes case against accused person atleast probable, considered by itself - Specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions by themselves are no testimony at all being wholly innocuous because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where ridges of the fingers or style of writing have been tampered with - They are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to Court that its inference based on other pieces of evidence is reliable - They are neither oral nor documentary evidence but belong to third category of material evidence which is outside limit of 'testimony - Directing accused to provide handwriting of accused and also his specimen signature will not amount to self-incrimination as contended by counsel for petitioner and same is mode of technology that is used for collecting evidence by Investigating Officer and it is domain of Investigating Officer to collect material in order to find out truth in investigation - Hence, very contention that it amounts to self-incrimination and violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted.
Result: Petition partly allowed

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by petitioner/ accused seeking to quash the order dated 25.08.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.39/2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that based on the complaint, the respondent police have registered the case in Cr.No.9/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC and FIR was submitted to the Court and this petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the III JMFC Court, Raichur on 24.06.2020 and enlarged on bail by accepting the bail petition filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

4. That on 27.04.2020, through APP, the PSI of Yapaladinni police station filed an application under Section 311A of Cr.P.C., seeking a direction from the Court to direct the petitioner herein to furnish the specimen signature and his hand writing to get the opinion from the expert. The same was opposed by the petitioner herein. The Trial Court having considered the allegations made against this petitioner, comes to the conclusion that the specimen signature and hand writing of this petitioner is necessary to investigate the matter further and hence, allowed the application vide order dated 10.06.2021.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, Crl.R.P.No.39/2021 was filed and the Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional powers allowed the revision in part and while allowing the revision petition, directed the IO to take the specimen signature of the accused in between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. in the presence of the counsel for the accused and rest of the order passed by the Trial Court has been unaltered. Being aggrieved by the said modification of the order as well as directing the petitioner to provide specimen signature, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel before this Court that the very impugned order dated 25.08.2021 has caused substantial injustice to the petitioner herein and the counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed illegality in directing the petitioner/accused to provide the specimen signature and hand writing without properly understanding the proviso of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and the same can be obtained only if the accused got arrested. The Sessions Judge also erred in directing the accused to give specimen signature without mentioning the date on which the petitioner should present before the IO and the mandatory requirement of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is not followed and when Section 311A of Cr.P.C., prescribes the procedure for obtaining the specimen signature it has to be done in that manner alone and hence, the order passed by both the Courts are not sustainable in the eye of law. The counsel would submit that subjecting the accused for providing specimen signature is in violation of Article 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the amount which was released in favour of the farmers are misappropriated by the petitioner herein creating the documents and forging the signature and made use of those fabricated documents to swallow the money of the farmers and in terms of the list, there were 99 farmers and an amount of Rs.5,35,839/-was got credited in the name of the 14 farmers and cheated by misappropriating the said amount and hence, the very contention of the petitioner counsel cannot be accepted.

8. Having heard the respective counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the question that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

(i) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in invoking Section 311A of Cr.P.C., in directing the accused to provide his specimen signature

Click Here to Read the rest of this document