Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The appointment of a Commissioner for collection of specimens is context-dependent; it is permissible when it aids in investigation or verification, such as in forgery cases, provided procedural safeguards like sealing and proper documentation are followed (the specimen seal shall be provided under seizure mahazar in the forwarding note so as to ensure tamper free collection) ["K.R.BABU vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Faizal K. V. , S/o. Late K. V. Beerankutty VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["FAIZAL K.V vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["Shadaksharappa S/o Veranna VS Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/o Pampanna - Karnataka"]- ["SANDHYA vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56687"]- ["K. T. Sukumaran, S/o. Thulaseedharan VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["K.R.BABU vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In legal disputes involving forgery, handwriting analysis, or document authenticity, obtaining specimen signatures is often crucial. But can a court appoint a commissioner to collect these specimens? This question arises frequently in civil and criminal proceedings under Indian law. Typically, courts rely on direct mechanisms rather than intermediaries like commissioners. This post delves into the legal framework, key provisions, and precedents to clarify the position.
Specimen signatures or handwriting samples are physical evidence used for comparison with disputed documents. They help courts or experts determine authenticity without violating constitutional protections like Article 20(3) against self-incrimination. As held, A specimen handwriting or signature... are no testimony at all... They are only materials for comparison. Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh VS Republic of India - 2011 1 Supreme 353
The core query: Can a commissioner be appointed for collection of specimen signature? The short answer, based on reviewed precedents, is generally no. No statutory provision or case law explicitly authorizes such delegation. Instead, collection happens directly through court orders or investigative powers. Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453RITESH SINHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 883
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), empowers courts to directly obtain specimens during pending inquiries or trials. It states: The Court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. RITESH SINHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 883
This power is exercisable only post-cognizance, during proceedings, and strictly direct—no intermediaries mentioned. The Supreme Court in relevant rulings clarified that Magistrates post-cognizance can direct specimens for forwarding to experts, but directly: Whether a Magistrate in the course of an enquiry or trial on being moved by the prosecution, is competent under Section 73... to direct the accused person to give his specimen handwriting. State VS Pali Ram - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 289
High Courts diverged earlier—some limited it to court self-use—but the apex court resolved this, emphasizing direct directions without delegation. State VS Pali Ram - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 289RITESH SINHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 883
Before the 2005 insertion of Section 311A CrPC, investigative agencies like police could collect specimens during investigations without court orders, as no statutory prohibition existed. In a 2000 incident case, the investigating agency had the power to collect such material including specimen handwriting/signature. Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453
Post-2005, Section 311A empowers First Class Magistrates to order specimens for investigation: a Magistrate of the first class... may make an order to that effect and... the person... shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting. A. K. Pratap VS Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Cochin, represented by The Standing Counsel CBI - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 779Akil Ahmed Ansari VS State of M. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 455
Again, these are direct orders—no role for commissioners. High Courts have rejected Magistrate directions to police during pure investigations, reinforcing non-delegable processes. GEORGE VS STATE OF KERALA - 1979 0 Supreme(Ker) 206T. Subbiah, (Accused) VS S. K. D. Ramaswamy Nadar, (Complainant) - 1969 0 Supreme(Mad) 70State Of U. P. VS Ram Babu Misra - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 89
Courts have consistently held that specimen collection is non-delegable. No document contemplates commissioners under Order 26 CPC or similar for this purpose. Processes contrast with local investigations, focusing on enabling the court to compare directly. Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453
Related precedents echo this restraint on commissioners for evidence collection:- Site inspections or commissioner appointments cannot serve evidence gathering: Neither the Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence nor can the report of the Commissioner be used as substantial evidence. Nathuram VS Raghunath - 2011 Supreme(Raj) 211- For the purpose of collection of evidence on behalf of the parties also no commissioner can be appointed. Swastik Assam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. VS Ratan Raha - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 1427- In CPC Order XXVI contexts, commissioners' reports are limited, and premature appointments risk roving inquiries. Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31145Swastik Assam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. VS Ratan Raha - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 1427
Even in non-core cases, like sales tax permits or Abkari Act inventories, specimen handling emphasizes authorized direct collection, not delegation. ELECTRIC & FURNISHING MART VS STATE OF ASSAM - 1981 Supreme(Gau) 41RAJU vs STATE OF KERALA - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13034
Article 20(3) does not bar physical specimens, allowing even force by police if needed, but always under direct authority. Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh VS Republic of India - 2011 1 Supreme 353RANJIT RAM VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1961 0 Supreme(All) 48
Key Limitations:- Post-Cognizance Only: Section 73 applies strictly to inquiries/trials. RITESH SINHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 883State VS Pali Ram - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 289- No Investigation Extension: Pure probes fall outside. Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453- Pre-2005 Flexibility: Police action upheld if non-prohibited, but no commissioner nod.- No Creative Delegation: Ancillary powers for voice samples tie back to direct statutes, not intermediaries. A. K. Pratap VS Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Cochin, represented by The Standing Counsel CBI - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 779Amit Khetawat VS State of Telangana - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 52
Counterarguments for waiver or expansion fail absent explicit support.
Other scenarios reinforce directness:- In a writ petition, rejecting time for CID specimen signatures highlighted procedural timelines, not commissioners. AKM Shamsuddoha Vs Judge Artha Rin Adalat No.2 Dhaka and others - 2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 12955- Clinical labs stress proper specimen collection protocols bedside or in-lab, underscoring preanalytic control without delegation. Anilkumar G. S/o Late Gangadharan VS State of Kerala - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 943- Excise cases mandate authorized officers for seals/samples, rejecting improper inventories. RAJU vs STATE OF KERALA - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13034
These illustrate broader judicial caution against unauthorized intermediaries in evidence handling.
When facing handwriting disputes:- Seek Direct Orders: Move for Section 73 IEA during proceedings or Section 311A CrPC for investigations.- Avoid Unsupported Requests: Commissioner applications lack backing and may be rejected.- Voluntary Compliance: Often preferable, but compulsion limited to statutes.- Expert Forwarding: Post-direction, send to government experts.- Legislative Gaps: Consider Law Commission analogies if needed. Amit Khetawat VS State of Telangana - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 52
Disclaimer: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
| Aspect | Ruling | Key Reference ||--------|--------|---------------|| Commissioner Role | Not authorized | All reviewed docs || Court Direction | Direct under S.73 IEA | RITESH SINHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 883 || Magistrate Power | S.311A CrPC post-2005 | A. K. Pratap VS Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Cochin, represented by The Standing Counsel CBI - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 779 || Investigation | Police pre-2005; direct post | Santosh @ Bhure VS State (G. N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 453 || Self-Incrimination | Not applicable | Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh VS Republic of India - 2011 1 Supreme 353 |
In summary, Indian law prioritizes direct, non-delegable specimen collection to ensure integrity and adherence to statutes. Courts have not endorsed commissioners for this, aligning with principles against evidence collection via reports. Stay informed, proceed cautiously, and rely on established channels for justice.
signature for the purpose of investigation. ... Another question which we have to consider is whether the police (CBI) had the power under CrPC to take specimen signature and writing of A-3 for examination by the expert. ... It was pointed out that during the investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to give his specimen signature on the asking of the police and only after the amendment of CrPC in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused ....
signature for the purpose of investigation. ... Another question which we have to consider is whether the police (CBI) had the power under CrPC to take specimen signature and writing of A-3 for examination by the expert. ... It was pointed out that during the investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to give his specimen signature on the asking of the police and only after the amendment of CrPC in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused ....
of the specimen signature Q2 and Q3 as it would amount the self-incrimination. ... signature or handwriting if the earlier obtained specimen were found to be inadequate. ... On perusal of the record, it is found that the application dated 29.4.2024, to obtain the specimen signature of the petitioner was in fact addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Indore by the Assistant State Examiner, Police Headquarter, Bhopal and subsequent to that, the letter d....
... Explanation. - The following officers shall be deemed to be on duty at a check post for the purpose of sub-rule (2) :- ... (1) The Deputy Commissioner, ... (2) any other officer appointed to assist the Commissioner and exercising jurisdiction ... On receipt of the aforesaid letter and the specimen form, the petitioner-firm contacted respondent No. 3 who apprised it that the letter and the specimen form flow from the instructions contained in the circular dated 1st January, 1981, and 8th September,....
In this case, PW2, an independent witness to the mahazar for the recovery and search, denied his signature in Ext.P1 recovery mahazar. However, he admitted his signature in Ext.P2 search list and Ext.P3 arrest memo. ... Though the learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, he failed to justify the anomalies in the matter of collection of sample, non- disclosure of the nature of specimen seal and absence of specimen seal in the forwarding note a....
(b) If the Commissioner is appointed and the report is secured, the same amounts to collection of evidence which is also impermissible. ... Thus, the contention that the Commissioner cannot be appointed for local inspection and such a recourse amounts to collection of evidence overlooks the provision, namely the Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code. 10. ... (2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed un....
The petitioner filed an application seeking time to supply the specimen signature as required by the CID but the Adalat by the impugned order dated 01.10.2023 rejected the said prayer which led the petitioner to file this writ petition. ... But the CID on 27.04.2023 required some other papers, in particular, specimen signatures of the petitioner put at the relevant time. ... signature and thereby signature to the for the petitioner submits that since the Adalat allowed to examine the signatur....
... (2) The provisions of R.10 of this Order shall apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under R.9. ... 6. ... ... (b) If the Commissioner is appointed and the report is secured, the same amounts to collection of evidence which is also impermissible. ... (c) The application for local inspection before completion of the trial is not contemplated in the scheme of Order XXVI of the Code. ....
However, he admitted his signature in Ext.P2 recovery mahazar. ... Section 67B provides that the authorised officer must be an officer authorised by the Government by notification in the Gazette and the said officer is an officer not below the rank of Assistant Excise Commissioner. ... the nature of the specimen seal in the mahazar and the specimen seal shall be affixed on the mahazar, on the sample bottle, bottle containing the remaining part of contraband and the forwarding note; (iii) The sample so collected shall be ....
signature or handwriting. ... Therefore, firstly, the satisfaction of the Magistrate is necessary that for the purpose of investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person including an accused person to give specimen signature or handwriting. ... Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. ... A perusal of the above provision would show that the Magistrate can order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting if the Magistrate i....
ii) Specimen signature of the authorized person should be countersigned by the hirers" 13. Adverting to the rival submissions, the questions that arise for consideration are:- or Letter of authority signed by the hirer when they are in India in the presence of our Bank officials. 12. In addition to that, it is pointed out that Annexure R3E is the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent against the 1st accused on 01.03.2022.
Any error in specimen collection can lead to erroneous results. (ii) Specimen collection can be done at the patient's bedside, in the laboratory or in the field. It is therefore considered an important step of good clinical laboratory practice and is referred to as “preanalytic control.” Attention should be paid to patient's sensibilities during the entire process.
9. In (1973) 39 Cut LT 180 : AIR 1973 Ori 240, it is observed thus : Debendranath Nandi v. Natha Bhuiyan For the purpose of collection of evidence on behalf of the parties also no commissioner can be appointed." d. K. Ragunath Rao v. Smt. Tumala Jailaxmi, AIR 1988 Ori 30.
As comparison of this is to be made out as a single event and cannot be done in piecemeal manner, right now sending whatever specimen signature with document containing other signature being sent for opinion and then as and when other signature of the Custom Officers are made available being send for comparison is impractical reality. Process of collecting the bill of entries wherein different custom officer have put their signatures genuine bill of entries in day to day transaction is about to be collected. It is only after Collecting all these specimen signature of the Custom Off....
Neither the Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence nor can the report of the Commissioner be used as substantial evidence. The facts narrated in application filed before the learned subordinate Court for site inspection clearly reveals that for the purpose of collection of evidence with regard to possession of the disputed land, this application has been filed. The party has to prove his case on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. Hence, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for proper appreciation of the ev....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
