SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
K.T. Sukumaran, S/o. Thulaseedharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 7845 of 2023
Decided on : 12-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV NIREESH MATHEW
For the Respondent: SREEJA. V PP

Point of Law: A speaking order is necessary from Magistrate, if he decides to pass an order under Section 311-A Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 465, 471, 477A, 120B, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 A - Misappropriated an amount – Criminal conspiracy – Offence of cheating - Accused Nos.1 to 4 with common intention and with a motive to get illegal gain for them and thereby causing loss to SNDP Union – Satisfaction of Magistrate is necessary for purpose of investigation or proceeding. (Para 6.)

Finding of the Court :

Section 311 A Cr.P.C would show that Magistrate has to pass a judicial order after application of mind - Simply because an application is filed under Section 311 A, Magistrate cannot pass a mechanical order without application of mind - Magistrate has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order after application of mind before invoking powers under section 311 A of Cr.P.C - Annexure 2 and Annexure 4 are not speaking orders - Court is of considered opinion that Annexure 2 and Annexure 4 orders are not orders passed in tune with Section 311-A Cr.P.C - Therefore, these orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Result: Crl.M.C is allowed.

ORDER :

Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471, 477A, 120B read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted that originally Adimaly police registered the case against the accused and later the investigation was transferred and conducted by the Crime Branch Department, Idukki and the same was renumbered as Crime No.30/CB/2016/IDK.

2. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 4 with common intention and with a motive to get illegal gain for them and thereby causing loss to the SNDP Union, Adimaly conspired during the period between 01.01.1992 to 24.08.2020 manipulated the accounts of SNDP Union, Adimaly, loan accounts of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and SN Public School, Anachal by using forged documents, misappropriated an amount of Rs. 73,71,683/-and thereby cheated the SNDP Union.

3. After the completion of investigation, the case is pending before the Court below for trial and disposal. While so, the Prosecution filed an application under Section 311 A Cr.P.C before the court below as evident by Annexure 1. The court below allowed the application and directed the accused persons to furnish their specimen handwritings and signatures as evident by Annexure 2 order. By virtue of Annexure 2 order, the accused persons were summoned by the investigating officer for collecting their specimen and sample handwritings. But the investigating officer could not collect the entire specimen and sample handwritings because of the reason that the documents were voluminous in nature and the same requires more time. At that time, the prosecution filed Annexure 3 petition seeking time to complete taking of sample handwritings of the accused. The court below allowed the said petition as per Annexure 4 order. Aggrieved by Annexure 2 and Annexure 4 orders, this Crl.M.C is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. This Court perused Annexure 2 and Annexure 4 orders.

These are orders passed invoking the powers under Section 311 A Cr.P.C. It will be better to extract section 311 A Cr.P.C.

“S. 311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.

If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:

Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.”

6. A perusal of the above provision would show that the Magistrate can order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting if the Magistrate is satisfied that for the purpose of investigation or proceedings under the Code, it is expedient to direct any person including an accused to give specimen signature or handwriting. Therefore, firstly, the satisfaction of the Magistrate is necessary that for the purpose of investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person including an accused person to give specimen signature or handwriting. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has to make an order to that effect. A reading of Section 311 A Cr.P.C would show that the Magistrate has to pass a judicial order after application of mind. Simply because an application is filed under Section 311 A, the Magistrate cannot pass a mechanical order without application of mind. A speaking order is necessary from the Magistrate, if he decides to pass an order under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. That is clear from the wordings of the section itself. The first part of the sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top