1. The instant revision petition is filed by the accused-petitioner, Shri Basab Bhattocharjee challenging the order, dated 15.12.2010, passed in Case No. PRC 3/2010 under section 468/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala wherein the learned CJM issued notice upon the surety of the accused to produce him (accused, petitioner herein) before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2 on 5.1.2011 at 3 p.m. for taking his required specimen signatures and writing by the I/O as required by the Forensic and Science Laboratory in presence of the Magistrate.

2. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel, appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that earlier also the accused-petitioner who is on bail, appeared before the court on 5.4.2010 on the basis of the prayer of the I/O and ordered by the court for putting his signature and thereafter, again vide impugned order, the learned CJM asked the surety of the accused-petitioner to produce him (i.e. the accused-petitioner) before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class to put his signature as required by the Forensic and Science Laboratory, which is contrary to the provisions of section 311A of the Cr.PC. He further submits that the court cannot ask an accused to give evidence against him. In the instant case, the court passed the impugned order without providing any opportunity to the accused-petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P., In-charge appearing for the respondent State while resisting the submission of Mr. Roy Barman submits that section 311A, Cr.PC. empowers the court to direct any person including an accused person to give his specimen signature or hand writing, for the purpose of investigation, particularly in a case where the prosecution case is based on forgery of documents and cheating. In support of his submission, Mr. Debnath placed reliance on section 45 of the Evidence Act wherein it is stated that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting (or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts, who are called as experts and the court taking note of the said provision if of the opinion that the document, which is required to be proved, is to be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion, it can taking the aid of section 311, Cr.PC ask the accused to put his signatures/handwriting for sending the same to the expert concerned. In the instant case also the learned CJM passed the impugned order as required by the Forensic and Science Laboratory, Narsingarh on the prayer of the I/O of the case. Therefore, no wrong was committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that in section 311, Cr.PC, it is nowhere mentioned that once an accused is asked for providing his signatures/handwriting, subsequently he cannot be asked to give the same in the interest of justice.

4. This court has gone through the prayer of the I/O of the case dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure 8 to the revision petition) on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order. For better appreciation, the same is reproduced herein under : -

"In the Court of Leanred Chief Judicial Magistrate,

West Tripura, Agartala.

Ref. : West Agt. P.S. Case No.01/10 u/s 468/420/34, IPC.

Subject : Prayer to pass necessary direction to accused Basab Bhattacharjee S/o. Lt. Krishna Bandhu Bhattacharjee of Ramnagar road-8, p/s-West Agartala, West Tripura.

Sir,

With reference to the above refer case I beg to inform you that accused Basab Bhattacharjee was asked by me to appear at PS on 7.12.2010 for giving his simple writing. The accused person appeared at PS but he refused to give his simple writing as directed by me. It is also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document