Jharkhand High Court
Manisha Tirkey vs State Of Jharkhand on 25 June, 2014
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1135 of 2013
Manisha Tirkey ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------
05/ 25.06.2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 12.3.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in G.R. No. 793 of 2012, whereby the Investigating Officer of the case has been directed to produce the petitioner, who was posted as the then Block Development Officer, Garhwa, before the Court for the purpose of collecting her specimen signatures before the Judicial Magistrate and for sending the same to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. By the subsequent order dated 9.4.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, where the petitioner is presently posted, to hold up the salary of the petitioner until she appears in the Court.
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner being the Block Development Officer, Garhwa, had lodged the F.I.R., in Garhwa P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 793 of 2012, for illegal withdrawal of Rs. 79,92,465/- on the basis of the missing cheques, on the basis of the forged signatures of the petitioner informant. Subsequently, it appears that after investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and the cognizance was also taken. It also appears that subsequently an application was given in the Court below by the Investigating Officer of the case, informing the Court that on the recovered cheques, there were signatures of the petitioner and, accordingly, requesting that the specimen signatures of the petitioner be obtained and the same be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, for the examination. The permission was accorded and it appears that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained by the Investigating Officer and the same were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The impugned order dated 12.3.2013 shows that the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory was received with the cheques. From the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, it transpired that the signatures of the petitioner were not collected in proper way and in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate, therefore the examination of the -2- specimen signatures of the petitioner had not been done. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer was directed to produce the petitioner in the Court so that her specimen signatures be collected in presence of a Judicial Magistrate and sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. By the subsequent order dated 9.4.2013, the Court below has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to hold up the salary of the petitioner, until she appeared in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Court below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, there is a clear prohibition in Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C., of obtaining the signature of any such person, unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding of the case. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not yet been made accused in the case and she was never arrested in connection with this case and, accordingly, her signature could not be ordered to be taken in the manner as has been ordered by the Court below. It is also submitted that in compliance of the earlier order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, her signatures, were already obtained by the Investigating Officer of the case and were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.
6. Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-
"311-A. 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 proceeding 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:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding."
7. From a plain reading of this provision, it is apparent that though the Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including the accused person, to -3- give his specimen signatures or handwriting, and also make an order to produce such person at the time and place specified in such order, but no such order can be made, unless such person, had at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.
8. In the present case, there being specific case of the petitioner that she was never arrested in connection with this case, nor has she been made accused so far, in my considered view, the petitioner is protected by Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. As such, the impugned orders, passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 12.3.2013 and 9.4.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in G.R. No. 793 of 2012, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012, are hereby, set aside.
10. This application is accordingly, allowed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) Amitesh/