Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Neal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)MPHT107
Author: Rakesh Saksena
Bench: Rakesh Saksena
ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 28-2-2007, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 321/05, allowing the application filed by the Investigating Officer for collecting the standard handwritings of the accused and for sending the same to handwriting expert.
2. Applicant is facing trial under Sections 302/394 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and on 25-11-2006 the case was fixed only for recording the evidence of Investigating Officer. The evidence of Investigating Officer R. Sharma was partly recorded on 5/6-12-2006, but later on he filed an application praying for time to collect the standard handwritings of the accused and send the same to handwriting expert. During investigation the standard handwriting of the accused was collected and sent to handwriting expert. Report of the handwriting expert was filed in the Court. However, according to the said report, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the questioned documents were in the handwriting of the accused. Investigating Officer moved an application on 24-4-2006 before the Trial Court for again collecting the standard handwriting of accused. The said application was allowed on 2-5-2006 and the accused was directed to give specimen handwriting for examination by the handwriting expert for comparison with the questioned documents. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the specimen of the handwriting of the accused was taken on 8-5-2006 before the Court. The standard documents were sent to handwriting expert and were compared with the questioned document and the report was submitted. The report filed before the Court is dated 24-10-2006. According to said report, the supplied standard writing did not provide sufficient data as well as variations in the writing characteristics for thorough comparison. Hence, it was found not possible to express definite opinion on questioned documents on the basis of available data. It was mentioned in the report that for definite opinion, well proved contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings containing voluminous capital English letters of person concerned, were required. In view the said report, Investigating Officer again filed an application on 5-12-2006 seeking time for collection of documents. The said application was allowed by the impugned order. It was ordered that prosecution may collect/bring some other standard documents and may file a report after getting it examined by the expert.
3. Learned Counsel submits that this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. This power of investigation for collection of evidence cannot be exercised by the Trial Court during pendency of the trial when almost all the evidence has been completed. In the past, prosecution had adduced two reports of handwriting expert, but they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution again moved an application for collecting evidence during pendency of the trial for filling up the lacunae found in the prosecution case.
4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that under Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court can direct the accused to give specimen signatures or handwritings for getting it examined by the expert. According to him, Trial Court did not commit any error in permitting the Investigating Officer to collect further evidence and send for examination to handwriting expert.
5. Under Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the power to direct a person including accused person to give specimen signature or handwriting is given to a Magistrate, when a person has been arrested sometime in connection with investigation. Apparently, the aforesaid provision is not attracted in the present case.
6. Once a charge-sheet is filed, the stage of investigation is over. However, after filing of the charge-sheet Investigating Officer is not precluded from obtaining and forwarding further evidence to Magistrate under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, that evidence is to be forwarded by way of a further report to Magistrate in respect to such evidence. This situation is not present in the case in hand. Here the prosecution evidence in the sessions trial has almost been completed. At one stage the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the prosecution for obtaining specimen handwriting of the accused, however, as the report of the expert was not favourable to prosecution, it again moved an application for collecting further evidence during pendency of the trial. This procedure does not find favour of law. Learned Counsel for the State is also not able to point out as to under what provision such an order can be passed. If such an application is allowed, it would be an unending process. The prosecution cannot be given any such right or opportunity which is not sanctioned by law in order to fill up its lacunae.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has committed error in allowing the application filed by the prosecution to collect further evidence during pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside.