A Magistrate's order directing the accused to provide specimen handwriting, signature, thumb impression, fingerprint, palm print, or footprint for comparison during the investigation of a case does not violate the privileges granted to the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and is permissible under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Misra, J.

1. These three Criminal references have been heard together, as they give rise to indentical questions of law regarding the power of the Magistrate to ask the accused to give specimen handwriting, signature, thumb impression, fingerprint, palm print or foot print for comparison, in course of investigation of the case, by a police officer.

2. Criminal Reference No. 16 of 1958 relates to the case of Gulzar Khan, Ahmad Khan and Daulat Khan V/s. State, that is, G.R. Case No. 790 (A) of 1957, in which the learned City Magistrate of Jamshedpur directed the accused on the 13th November, 1957, to appear before Golmuri police station for giving their fingerprints and foot-prints for the purpose of comparison on the prayer made by the investigating Officer by his petition dated the 23rd October, 1957. These accused persons, had, however, been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the 7th October, 1957. The accused made a grievance of the order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, an application was made on their behalf in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of the Magistrate, as the order operated as an infringement of the privileges conferred on them under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the application and made a reference to this Court for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

3. Criminal Reference No. 116 of 1958 relates to the case of Shiba Prasad Mukherji V/s. State under Sec.379 read with Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the City Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 59-A of 1958. On the 17th March, 1958, the learned Magistrate ordered the accused to appear before the Sub-Inspector of Sakchi police station on the 25th March, 1958, to give specimens of his signature for the purpose of comparison on a petition filed by the investigating police officer. The accused filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to this Court for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the order of the learned City Magistrate amounts to an infringement of the privileges conferred on the accused under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.

4. Criminal Reference No. 32 of 1960 relates to the case of State V/s. D.J. Minwalla and others under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in which the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Ranchi Sadar ordered the accused persons to appear before the Magistrate to give specimen handwritings and thumb-impressions by the 10th September, 1959, by his order dated the 10th August, 1959. The accused filed a petition before the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur for quashing the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer, and the learned Judicial Commissioner, by his order dated the 2nd September, 1959, dismissed the application for reference to this Court and made certain observations which purported to accept the points raised on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Commissioner to the effect that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer amounted to an infringement of the privileges conferred upon them under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and, as such, it was fit to be set aside.

The learned Sub-divisional Officer, by his order dated the 10th November, 1959, recalled his previous order dated the 10th August, 1959. The State moved the learned Judicial Commissioner again, challenging the propriety of this order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer dated the 10th November, 1959. The learned Judicial Commissioner has referred this matter to this Court, stating that the previous order passed by him (Sub-divisional Officer) on the 10th August, 1959, was a correct order and the order passed by him on the 10th November, 1959 recalling his previous order was incorrect. He has further stated that, though the direction by a Magistrate to an accused person to give his speci