Back
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
K. T. Sukumaran, S/o. Thulaseedharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
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
The proviso to the section authorizing the collection of specimen signatures must be construed harmoniously to avoid absurdity. It applies specifically to accused persons and is satisfied if the indi....
A specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions by themselves are no testimony at all being wholly innocuous because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges of the finge....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 311A Cr.P.C. and the limitations imposed by the proviso.
Cooperation with criminal investigations under Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not necessitate prior arrest and the issuance of notices for signature samples is valid, preserving investigative authority.
The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and applications to introduce evidence cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps left by the prosecution.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
