IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
Faizal K.V., S/o. Late K.V. Beerankutty – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor and Anr. – Respondents
CRL.MC No. 5660 Of 2023
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142, 20(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 311A – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Identification of Prisoners Act, 1950 – Section 5 – Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 – Section 311A, 3 – Investigation - Service book was seized - Compare suspected handwriting - Aggrieved by order passed by learned Magistrate ordering petitioner to furnish his measurement (handwriting) by invoking provisions of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, petitioner is before this Court – An accused person is called upon by court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of nature of a ‘personal testimony’- Para 19.
Finding of the Court: Court unhesitatingly take view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for purpose of investigation of a crime – Court order accordingly and consequently dispose appeals in terms of above – Would indicate that Magistrate is given power to order for collection of voice sample for purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in CrPC by Parliament – Supported by above ratio, Court see no infirmity with impugned judgment of High Court as also of Special Court ordering accused to give his voice sample to facilitate investigation of crime.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that a Judicial Magistrate can be conceded power to order a person to give a voice sample for investigation until Parliament enacts explicit provisions, via interpretation under Article 142 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the lack of explicit CrPC provisions and supports voice sample collection under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 as interpreted and integrated with CrPC amendments (!) (!) (!) . - It cites that the fundamental right to privacy is not absolute and may bow to compelling public interest in the context of voice sample collection, referencing Ritesh Sinha, Modern Dental College, Gobind, and K.S. Puttaswamy jurisprudence (!) (!) (!) . - It confirms the order of the Magistrate directing voice/sample collection was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, with no infirmity found in the impugned judgments (!) (!) (!) . - The decision reiterates that while specimen handwriting and other measurements have specific statutory grounding, the voice sample power arises through judicial interpretation under Article 142 until statutory provisions are enacted (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering the petitioner to furnish his measurement (handwriting) by invoking the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 (“Act, 2022” for the sake of brevity), the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.113/2022 of the Pavaratty Police Station registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner, without being adequately qualified, secured employment as a teacher in the Higher Secondary Department of Alimul Islam Aided School on the strength of forged certificates.
3. In the course of the investigation, the service book of the petitioner was seized. The investigating officer felt that the handwriting on the second page of the service book was not that of the petitioner. In order to compare the suspected handwriting with the genuine handwriting, an application was filed seeking the issuance of directions to the petitioner to furnish his specimen handwriting impressions in the presence of the Court for forwarding the same to the handwriting expert.
4. Sri. Shameem Ahammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner filed his objection, contending that immediately after the registration of the crime, the petitioner had approached the court and was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions on March 22, 2022. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner then executed the bail bond on the cover of the order. As the petitioner was never arrested at any point in connection with Annexure-A1 crime either before or after the order passed by the court, the empowering provisions under Section 311A of the Cr.P.C. or Section 3 of the Identification Act, 2022 would not apply. It is contended that under both the above provisions, the accused must be arrested at some point in connection with the investigation or proceeding. Relying on the provisions of the Act, 2022, it is submitted that prior to making an order under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, the Magistrate must be satisfied that it is expedient to direct any person to give measurements under the Act for the purpose of any investigation. In the case at hand, the scope of the investigation is whether the accused fabricated the qualification certificates and nothing more. Therefore, the comparison with the entries in the service book has nothing to do with the investigation in the instant case. The learned counsel would refer to the observations in Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 and specifically to Paragraph No 145, and it is argued the Apex Court had observed that though acts such as compulsorily obtaining specimen signatures and handwriting samples are testimonial in nature, they are not incriminating by themselves if they are used for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts or materials that the investigators are already acquainted with. In the case on hand, by no stretch of the imagination can it be held that obtaining handwriting samples had anything to do with securing a job by forging qualification certificates. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot, therefore, be forced to provide their measurements in the open court, which would amount to crippling the rights of the petitioner in the criminal proceeding in which he is an accused.
5. Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the contentions advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained under the law. He relied on Selvi (supra), and it was argued that obtaining measurements with the aid of the relevant provisions of Act, 2022 cannot be regarded as incriminating. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel that handwriting in the service records had nothing to do with the investigation of the crime is concerned, it is submitted that the manner and the method of conducting the investigation is th
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P.: (2016) 7 SCC 353
Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
State of Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Kumar
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deomen
State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
T. Subbiah v. S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar
Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad v. State
B. Rami Reddy v. State of A.P.
Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote
Dara Singh v. Republic of India
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P and Another
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra
The court upheld the authority to compel handwriting samples from an accused under the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, provided there's an earlier submission to the court's jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of recorded conversation and the power of the Court to obtain voice samples of the witnesses under Section 91 of the CrPC.
Electronic Evidence - As per Section 79A, Central Government may, for purpose of providing expert opinion on electronic from evidence before any Court or other authority specify, by notification in O....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the direction to give a voice sample did not violate the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, and the admissibility of e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a Judicial Magistrate to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime is not confined merely to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a Judicial Magistrate to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime is not confined merely to ....
The fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. The admissibility of memory card evidence without certification under Section 65-B of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.