Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amit Kumar Ghosh Alias Srikanta Ghosh vs The State & Anr on 24 September, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1
Form No.J.(1)
In the High Court at Calcutta
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy
C.R.R. No.2895 of 2012
With
CRAN No.503 of 2014
Amit Kumar Ghosh alias Srikanta Ghosh
-Vs-
The State & Anr.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Chattopadhyay.
For the opposite party No.2 .. None.
For the State : None.
Heard on : 05-09-2014.
Judgment on : 24.09.2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
The present petitioner after being arrested in connection with Howrah Police Station Case No.101/2011 under Sections 408/409/341/325/506/120B IPC, is now on bail and the said case, which gave rise to G.R. Case No.1414/2011, is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
It is submitted that the petitioner was one of the Directors of Ramkrishnapur Co-operative Bank Limited, which is now under closure and has already resigned from the said post. It is further submitted although at present the petitioner has no connection with the Bank still, 2 the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the investigating officer of the case for taking his specimen signature and before allowing such prayer, no opportunity of hearing was given to him.
Going through the materials on record, I find it is the case against the petitioner that he misappropriated huge amount of money from the Bank account on the basis of false, fabricated and forged documents and the investigating officer of the case invoking the provisions of section 311A CrPC made such prayer.
None appears either on behalf of the State or on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Undoubtedly, a Magistrate of 1st Class, in terms of provision of section 311A CrPC is empowered to direct an accused to give his specimen signature or handwriting, for the purpose of investigation of a criminal case, in connection with which he has been arrested for some time, if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that same is expedient in the interest of justice. It is true while making such direction the learned Magistrate neither recorded his satisfaction that it was expedient to make such an order. However, having regard to the facts that this is a case where huge amount of money was misappropriated by the Bank Officials by fabricating and forging documents, therefore, to ascertain the authorship of the forged documents, the signature and handwriting of any accused of the case, is undoubtedly needed in the interest of justice but at the same time formation of opinion is also an essential requirement to invoke the power conferred under section 311A CrPC by a court. It is not at all proper for the court to act as a post office and on the mere prayer of the investigating officer of the case, allow such prayer. However, even 3 after recording of his satisfaction, if the learned Magistrate makes such an order, although the accused is at liberty not to give his signature but in such case he shall make him liable for drawing an adverse presumption against him by the court during the trial.
However, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned advocate of the petitioner that the order impugned has been vitiated because same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. On a plain reading of the provision of section 311A CrPC, it is found that such provision nowhere provides for giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused before making such an order.
In view of above, the order impugned is set aside and this application is allowed and disposed of.
This order, however, will not preclude the learned Magistrate to pass a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the provisions of section 311A CrPC, on the basis of the self-same application made to him by the investigating officer of the case. He is directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter afresh within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
In the light of the disposal of the main criminal revisional application, the application for extension of interim order, being CRAN No.503 of 2014 also stands disposed of.
The office is directed at once to communicate this order to the court below.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 4 5