Dipak Misra, C.J.

Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness of the decisions in Harpal Singh v. State (Criminal Appeal No.362/2008 decided on 25th May, 2010) and Satyawan v. State (Criminal Appeal No.34/2001 decided on 9th July, 2009) wherein the two Division Benches had ignored the part of the report of the handwriting expert on the ground that the investigating officer had taken specimen handwriting in violation of the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (for brevity "the 1920 Act"), the Division Bench that was hearing the Criminal Appeals No.1005/2008 [Bhupender Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)] and No. 408/2007 [Drojan Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)], referred the following question to be adjudicated by a larger Bench:

"Whether the sample finger prints given by the accused during investigation under section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act will be admissible or not?"

Under these circumstances, the matter has been placed before us.

2. As the question, that has been referred, totally rests on the interpretation of the provisions of the 1920 Act, the facts need not be adumbrated in detail except stating that at the time of hearing the appeals, the Division Bench, while adverting to the concept of circumstantial issue, was required to deal with the reliance placed by the prosecution on sample finger prints as a part of circumstantial evidence.

3. At the very outset, we may refer with profit to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1920 Act. It reads as follows:

"The object of this bill is to provide legal authority for taking of measurements, finger impressions, foot-prints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in connection with, certain offences. The value of the scientific use of finger impressions and photographs as agents in the detection of crime and the identification of criminals is well known, and modern development in England and other European countries render it unnecessary to enlarge upon the need for the proposed legislation. The existing system by which the police in India take finger impressions, photographs, etc., of criminals and suspected criminals is void of legal sanction, except as regards registered members of criminal tribes, in whose case provision exists for the taking of finger impressions in Section 9 of the Criminal Tribes Act, 1911 (III of 1911). The need for legalising the practice has long been recognized, but it was not thought expedient to take the matter up so long as no practical difficulties arose. Instances have recently been reported to the Government of India where prisoners have refused to allow their finger prints or photographs to be taken. With a view to prevent such refusals in future it is considered necessary without further delay to place the taking of measurements, etc., which is a normal incident of police work in India as elsewhere, on a regular footing. No measurement, etc., of any person will be taken compulsorily unless that person has been arrested."

4. Section 2(a) defines "measurements" as follows:

"(a)

"measurements" include finger impressions and foot-print impressions."

5. Section 3 provides taking of measurements, etc., of convicted persons. It reads as follows:

"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 security for his good behaviour under section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, if so required, allow his measurements and photograph to be taken by a police officer in the prescribed manner."

6. Section 4 stipulates taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons. It is as follows:

"4. Taking of measurement, etc., of non-convicted persons.--Any p