The prosecution has the right to collect additional evidence, and objections to obtaining handwriting samples mid-way through the investigation preempt guilt and cannot restrain the prosecution from collecting evidence.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Emergency Response System, Amritsar, is taken on record.

2. The petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, whereby an application moved by the petitioner objecting to the comparison of the handwriting samples of the petitioner with those present on the alleged posters, with a consequential prayer to discard the request of the prosecution for comparison of the handwriting samples of the petitioner, was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has Lald a great emphasis on the investigation conducted by the previous agency i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter and thus, submitted that the investigation conducted by such Agency still holds good and the same must be taken into consideration by the now Constituted SIT. He has taken a leaf out of the judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court in CRM-M-19785-2020- Sukhjinder Singh @ Sunny Vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 04.01.2021, wherein the State of Punjab, had given a clear undertaking that the investigation conducted by the CBI, shall be taken into consideration by the SIT.

4. While stretching the aforesaid argument, Mr. Handa, has contended that it is an undisputed fact that earlier the handwriting samples of the petitioner obtained by the CBI and sent for compassion with those present on the incriminating posters, to the CFSL, Delhi, did not match. Having already ordained such course, it is not open to the prosecution to repeat the same course of action. He would, accordingly, submit that such process would amount to re-investigation, which the prosecution legally is not allowed to do so and what the prosecution could do in the matter, is only to further investigate the matter. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 570 and SLP (Criminal) No. 593 of 1998 - K. Chandrasekhar and others Vs. State of Kerala, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 719. Mr. Handa has further argued that even if the petitioner gave his consent earlier on 01.06.2021 to send his handwriting samples for comparison, the same would hold no validity, as there can be no estoppels against law. The earlier consent given in the police custody, would not only be hit by the provisions of the Evidence Act, but the same would be no consent in view of the fact that the matter cannot be reinvestigated by the SIT. In other words, it is submitted that under the guise of further investigation, the SIT cannot be allowed to do a de-novo investigation.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab, while emphatically piercing through the aforesaid arguments raised by Mr. Handa, would state that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had not given his consent as recorded in the order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate and more so at that time, the petitioner was accompanied by his counsel. Thus, at best, if aggrieved, the petitioner could have challenged the said order, but it was not done so.

6. Still further, while not dithering from the earlier stand of the State of Punjab in the previous round of litigation as regards the same subject matter, it is contended that the earlier investigation conducted by the CBI, is only persuasive in nature and not binding upon the SIT and any undertaking given before the Court, would not restrain the prosecution from collecting further evidence. Hence, the petitioner has got no lawful right to press his plea to mandatorily take into consideration the previous report of the CFSL as regards his handwriting samples.

7. Still further, it is submitted that taking the plea of the petitioner as regards previous investigation as tenable, though for the sake of arguments, even then said undertaking had been given by the State of Punjab in the proceedings