The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of handwriting evidence obtained by the investigating officer and the authority of the investigating officer to obtain handwriting and signatures of the accused.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—

This application has been filed by the State, under Section 391 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., for taking specimen handwriting of the appellant Raj Kumar, before the Court, for the purpose of comparison with the handwriting on the ransom letters.

2. The appellant Raj Kumar and other co-accused, have been convicted under Section 302/364A/201/120B IPC, for having abducted/ kidnapped Ashok @ Bunty for ransom and for his murder. The prosecution case, as accepted by the trial court, is that Ashok, aged 18-19 years, was missing since 8.30 P.M., 6th December, 2005. Ashok’s father, Ram Kishan (PW-5), searched but could not locate him. On 7th December, 2005, PW-5 called No. 100 and, on 8th December, 2005, lodged a Missing Person’s Complaint with Police Station, Kalyan Puri. On 9th December, 2005, PW-5 received a ransom note, demanding Rs.10 lakhs, along with the jeans jacket of Ashok. The ransom note, with the jeans jacket of the deceased, was dropped at the door step of PW-5’s house. FIR No. 624/05 was registered under Section 364A IPC, on 10th December, 2005 at 00.10 Hrs with P.S. Kalyan Puri. The factum of seizure of the said jeans jacket, along with the ransom note, is recorded in the endorsement Ex. PW5/B. Again, on 12th December, 2005, shirt of the deceased was thrown outside PW-5’s house. The shirt had another ransom note/letter, repeating the demand and the threat (seized vide Ex. PW-5/D). On 15th January, 2006, at about 7.00 P.M., co-accused Rakesh was apprehended by Jai Prakash (PW-2), brother of PW-5, when he was attempting to throw another ransom letter inside PW-5’s house. In the third ransom note/letter demand of Rs.15 lacs was made. On the basis of disclosure, made by co-accused Rakesh, and the investigation done by the police, the appellant Raj Kumar was arrested from the house of the accused Mohan.

3. Prosecution version, accepted by the trial court, alleges that two ransom notes, received by PW-5 on 9th December, 2005 and 12th December, 2005, were in the hand writing of accused Raj Kumar and were written on pages drawn from the diary, which was recovered through the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-2/C) made by the appellant Raj Kumar, from the house of co-accused Mohan in village Bhoapur, Ghaziabad. Other alleged incriminating material, relied upon by the prosecution, and other aspects of this case need not be examined at this stage, where a limited issue has arisen for consideration.

4. During the course of investigation, ACP Rajeshwar Kumar (Retd.) (PW-16), on 18th January, 2006, took specimen handwriting of the appellant Raj Kumar, vide memo Ex. PW16/H-1 TO 16/H-3, for forensic evaluation. S.I. Sansar Singh (PW-15) was witness to the same. FSL Report, dated 30th June, 2006, (Ex. PW16/O) has been relied upon for two reasons. Firstly, to prove that the ransom notes were in the appellant Raj Kumar’s handwriting and, secondly, to prove that ransom notes were written on pages torn from the diary seized from the accused (Ex. PW-2/G).

5. The trial court had relied upon the FSL Report (Ex. PW16/O) for conviction of Raj Kumar and the another co-accused.

6. One of the contentions, raised by the appellant counsel, is that FSL Report (Ex. PW16/O) cannot be relied upon and should be excluded from evidence, on the premise that, specimen handwriting cannot be taken by a police officer (PW-16 in the present case). Reliance is placed on Section 311A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which was inserted by Amendment Act 2005 w.e.f. 23rd June, 2006 and on Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoner’s Act, 1920 (herein referred to as 1920 Act).

7. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of 1920 Act read, as under:-

“3. Taking of measurements, etc., of convicted persons. — Every person who has been, — (a) convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, or of any offence which would render him liable to enhanced punishment on a subsequent conviction; or (b) ordered to give securit