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.

ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering the petitioner to furnish his measurement (handwriting) by invoking the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 (“Act, 2022” for the sake of brevity), the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The petitioner has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.113/2022 of the Pavaratty Police Station registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner, without being adequately qualified, secured employment as a teacher in the Higher Secondary Department of Alimul Islam Aided School on the strength of forged certificates.

3. In the course of the investigation, the service book of the petitioner was seized. The investigating officer felt that the handwriting on the second page of the service book was not that of the petitioner. In order to compare the suspected handwriting with the genuine handwriting, an application was filed seeking the issuance of directions to the petitioner to furnish his specimen h andwriting impressions in the presence of the Court for forwarding the same to the handwriting expert.

4. Sri. Shameem Ahammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner filed his objection, contending that immediately after the registration of the crime, the petitioner had approached the court and was granted anticipatory b ail subject to conditions on March 22, 2022. A ccording to the learned counsel, the petitioner then executed the bail bond on the cover of the order. As the petitioner was never arrested at any point in connection with Annexure-A1 crime either before or after the order passed by the court, the empowering provisions under Section 311A of the Cr.P.C. or Section 3 of the Identification A ct, 2022 would not apply. It is contended that under both the above provisions, the accused must be arrested at some point in connection with the investigation or proceeding. Relying on the provisions of t he Act, 2022, it is submitted that prior to making an order under Section 5 o f the Identification of Prisoners Act, the Magistrate must be satisfied that it is expedient to direct any person to give measurements under the Act for the purpose of any investigation. In the case at hand, the scope of the investigation is whether the accused fabricated the qualification certificates and nothing more. Therefore, the comparison with the entries in the service book has nothing to do with the investigation in the instant case. The learned counsel would refer to the observations inSelvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 and specifically to Paragraph No 145, and it is argued the Apex Court had observed that though acts such as compulsorily o btaining specimen signatures and handwriting samples are testimonial i n nature, they are not incriminating by themselves if they are used for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts or materials that the i nvestigators are already acquainted with. In the case on hand, by no stretch of the imagination can it be held that obtaining handwriting samples had anything to do with securing a job by forging qualification certificates. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot, therefore, be forced to provide their measurements in the open court, which would amount to crippling the rights of the petitioner in the criminal proceeding in which he is an accused.

5. Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the contentions advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained under the law. He relied onSelvi (supra), and it was argued that obtaining measurements with the aid of the relevant provisions of Act, 2022 cannot be regarded as incriminating. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel that handwriting in the service records had nothing to do with the investigation of the crime is concerned, it is submitted that the manner and the method of conducting the investigation is