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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Sandeep Kaur & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh - Respondent
CRM-M No. 10369 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajeev Anand, APP, for U.T., Chandigarh., for the Respondent.

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.

Headnote:

Specimen Signatures - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311A - Summary of the provisions of Section 311A Cr.P.C. empowering the Judicial Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. The court discussed the interpretation of the provision and its application to the accused, victims-complainants, and the investigating officer. The decision highlighted the limitations imposed by the proviso and the necessity for the accused to be arrested for the order to be applicable.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, related to the preparation of false documents. The investigating officer sought an order for taking specimen signatures and admitted signatures of the accused for comparison.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order made by the Judicial Magistrate upon the investigating officer's application was not legally amenable, and the accused's failure to cooperate empowered the investigating officer to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation and application of Section 311A Cr.P.C., compliance with specimen signatures, and the authority of the investigating officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 311A Cr.P.C., the limitations imposed by the proviso, and the necessity for the accused to be arrested for the order to be applicable.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - (Through video conferencing)

1. In FIR bearing No. 209 of 8.12.2019, registered at Police Station Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, are embodied. The allegation, as made in the FIR (supra) is of preparation of false documents at the instance of the accused concerned.

2. Apparently, the offences (supra), as are cast in the afore FIR, are construable as offences, qua which the learned Magistrate can make trial as a warrants case, and, or in other words, the offences are non-bailable offences, besides are cognizable offences. The impact of the above is that the investigating officer concerned, has rather independent powers of investigations in respect of commission of offences embodied in the FIR (supra). However, he proceeded to make an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, seeking an order for taking the specimen, and, admitted signatures of the accused hence for comparisons thereof, being made, with the admitted, and, specimen signatures of the complainant, besides with the disputed signatures existing on the purportedly false document(s). Though, the learned Magistrate concerned, was required to be not entertaining the application, and, was empowered to direct the investigating officer concerned, to hold independent investigations with respect to the FIR. Nonetheless, the learned Magistrate concerned, has made affirmative directions upon the investigating officer's application, as preferred before him, for purpose (supra).

3. Be that as it may, Section 311A Cr.P.C., provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, does empower the Judicial Magistrate, subject to his making an objective satisfaction, that when for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code, rather it is expedient to direct any person, including the accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, hence to make an order for the person concerned becoming summoned for his, at the time specified in the orders, and, in the summons, hence attending the Court for his giving his specimen signatures or handwritings.

    "311A- 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 proceedings 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."

    4. A reading of the above extracted mandate, carried in Section 311 Cr.P.C., empowers the Judicial Magistrate concerned, to make the afore order, not only qua the accused but also with respect to any person, inasmuch as any person other than the accused, or at first glance even qua the victim-complainant. Though, the accused in compliance with the apposite order, did purvey, his specimen, and, admitted handwritings, before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. However, the direction, as, made upon the complainant(s)-victim(s) has remained un-complied with by the latter. The direction, as made upon the victims-complainants though at first glance falls within the ambit of the statutory phrase "any person", hence existing in the substantive portion of the hereinabove extracted provision. However, on a deepest reading of the mandate, carried thereins, especially of the coinage "any person other than the accused person", it may not include the victim or the complainant, as the proviso occurring underneath, the substantive provisions as, carried in Section 311 Cr.P.C. rather regulates, and, governs the prior thereto substantive provision existing in Section (supra). Since the order within the ambit of the substantive provisions, cannot be made unless within the proviso the accuse

    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
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top