HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 580 / 2017

Raghunandan Vyas S/o Damodarlal Ji Vyas,, By Caste Brahimin,

R/o House No. 1-P-23, Tilak Nagar Bhilwara. the Then Chief

Booking Supervisor, Railway Station, Udaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

Union of India- Through CBI

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Counsel with Mr.

Nishant Bora.

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Spl. P.P. for CBI.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

Order

22/05/2017

Imploring quashment of impugned order dated 26^th of April

2017, passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur (for short,

‘learned trial Court’), accused petitioner has laid this revision

petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. By the order under

challenge, learned trial Court has allowed application of the

prosecution under Section 311A Cr.P.C. in Criminal Original Case

No.06/14, wherein petitioner is charged for offence punishable

under Sections 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471

IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, consequently directing the

accused petitioner to provide his specimen signatures for its

examination by handwriting expert of Central Forensic Science

Laboratory, Bhopal.

(2 of 8)

[CRLR-580/2017]

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that although

Legislature has conferred discretion on the trial Court to invoke

Section 311A Cr.P.C., if it is expedient to do so, but then, such

power is not unfettered and in the instant case learned trial Court

has exercised its power without any justifiable reason so as to

make the impugned order per se vulnerable. Learned Senior

Counsel has urged that during investigation specimen signatures

of petitioner were obtained twice and sent for examination to

Central Forensic Science Laboratory but the expert has not given

any definite opinion upon comparison with signatures marked Q1

to Q162, was a significant fact, which is completely eschewed by

the learned trial Court, is sufficient to render the impugned order

infirm. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel would contend that

impugned order is per se an affirmative attempt of the learned

trial Court to collect incriminating evidence against the petitioner,

therefore, the same is not tenable. Learned Senior Counsel has

placed reliance on a decision of M.P. High Court in Ravi Neal Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh [2008 (2) MPHT 107].

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Dr. Sachin

Acharya, submits that learned trial Court has rightly exercised its

discretion by resorting to Section 311A Cr.P.C., and therefore,

impugned order requires no interference in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has urged that

Section 311A Cr.P.C. is an extension of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

conferring wide discretion on the trial Court to unearth the truth

(3 of 8)

[CRLR-580/2017]

as and when it is found expedient to do so. Learned Special

Public Prosecutor would, therefore, contend that in the given

circumstances when learned trial Court has exercised its discretion

for just decision of the case, the said discretionary order is not

liable to be tinkered with. In support of his arguments, learned

Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on a decision of

Supreme Court in Mannan Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

& Anr. [(2014)13 SCC 59].

I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Special Public Prosecutor, and perused the impugned order

as well as materials available on record.

The core issue which requires judicial scrutiny in the instant

case is power of the Court under Section 311A Cr.P.C. Power

conferred on a Magistrate under Section 311A Cr