A court can authorize the collection of specimen handwriting for forensic analysis under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to appear before the Court to collect specimen handwriting.

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.19/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The criminal case arises out of a cheque issued by the petitioner which was allegedly dishonoured. During the course of the proceedings, five witnesses were examined and thereafter complainant filed an application as C.M.P No.1644/2022, requesting the Court to send Ext.P5 cheque and the sample for an analysis by the handwriting expert. Another petition was filed as C.M.P No.1645/2022, seeking a direction to the petitioner to provide his signature by writing and signing twenty times in the manner it is written in Ext.P5 cheque. 3. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated

01.10.2022, after noticing that no contemporaneous documents have been produced nor an affidavit filed, directed him to appear before the Court to collect the specimen handwriting.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Court cannot act as an expert and relied upon Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It was submitted that though petitioner has been directed to appear before the Court to collect the specimen handwriting, there is no direction to forward it to the forensic laboratory, and that petitioner apprehends that the attempt of the Court is to consider the handwriting and signature by itself as an expert.

5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and the nature of order that I propose to issue, notice to the 2nd respondent is not necessary.

6. Ext.P5 is an order passed in C.M.P No.1644/2022 in C.C. No.19/2014, directing the petitioner to appear before the Court to collect specimen handwriting. There is nothing in the order which indicates that the specimen handwriting after collection will not be send to the forensic laboratory. The apprehension of the petitioner is premature and is not reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The very fact that the Court has directed the petitioner to provide specimen handwriting itself is an indication that the Court intends to act in accordance with law.

In the nature of the contentions and the challenge raised, I find no merits in the objections against Ext.P5 and accordingly, I dismiss this original petition.