The Magistrate lacks the authority under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct a person to provide specimen handwriting or signature during the investigation stage.

ORDER :- This revision petition has been filed by the accused in Crime No. 4 of 1968, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sriviliputur, directing him to appear on 27-11-1968 for taking his specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of investigation.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioner are briefly as follows;

3. The petitioner was arrested by the Rajapalayam Police in connection with certain offences of cheating, forgery etc., alleged to have been

committed by him. He was subsequently released on bail. While the investigation was pending, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, filed a memo on 21-9-1968 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srivilliputtur, requesting him to direct the petitioner to give his specimen handwriting and affix his specimen signature both in ink and pencil for the purpose of further investigation in the matter. On that memo, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner asking him to appear on 5-10-1968 and give his specimen handwriting and signature for the purpose of further investigation. On 5-10-1968 the petitioner appeared through his counsel and filed an objection petition alleging that he was not bound in law to furnish specimen handwriting or signature as that would amount to testimonial compulsion to offer evidence against himself, offending Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and directed him to appear on 27-11-1968 for the purpose of giving his specimen signature and handwriting.

5. Against the above order, this revision has been filed. In this revision petition, the petitioner raised the following points; (1) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue any summons to the petitioner under Sec. 94, Criminal P. C. for the purpose of producing any documents and consequently for complying with the directions issued by the Court; (2) that the direction given by the Court insisting upon the petitioner to give his specimen signature and handwriting would amount to testimonial compulsion offending Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. This point has been raised in the lower Court and negatived; (3) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct the petitioner to give his specimen handwriting or signature when the charge-sheet had not been filed, in other words, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to exercise this power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act during the pendency of the investigation while he has not taken cognizance of the case.

6. In respect of the first point that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 94, Criminal P. C. to issue summons to the petitioner for the purpose of taking his specimen signature or handwriting from him. I am of the view that there is nothing to indicate, that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner under Section 94, Criminal P. C. Section 94, Criminal P. C., will apply only to cases where the Court requires the production of any document or other thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Criminal P. C. In this case, the summons was not issued to the petitioner for the production of any document or any other thing. The word "thing" referred to in Section 94, Criminal P. C. is a physical object or material and does not refer to an abstract thing. It cannot be said that issuing of summons to a person for the purpose of taking his specimen signature or handwriting is for the production of any document or a thing contemplated under Section 94