Madras High Court
Sri Maruthi Processors vs R. Subramaniam on 5 October, 2012
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05-10-2012
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 654, 655 and 657 of 2012
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Crl.R.C. No. 654 of 2012
1. Sri Maruthi Processors
a registered firm by
Partner R. Palanisamy
Kalathukadu
Opp. To K.P.T. Petrol Bunk
Salem N.H.47 Bye Pass Main Road
Komarapalayam
Tiruchengode Taluk
Namakkal District
2. R. Palanisamy
Partner
Sri Maruthi Processors
3. Kamalam
Wife of R. Palanisamy
Partner
Sri Maruthi Processors
Petitioners 2 and 3 are residing at
Pillaiyar Koil Thottam
Lakshmi Nagar
Kalingarayanpalayam
H/o. Mettunasuvampalayam
Erode and Distict .. Petitioners
Versus
R. Subramaniam .. Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012
R. Palanisamy .. Petitioner
Versus
R. Karuppanasamy .. Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012
1. Sri Maruthi Processors
a registered firm by
Partner R. Palanisamy
Kalathukadu
Opp. To K.P.T. Petrol Bunk
Salem N.H.47 Bye Pass Main Road
Komarapalayam
Tiruchengode Taluk
Namakkal District
2. R. Palanisamy
Partner
Sri Maruthi Processors
3. Kamalam
Wife of R. Palanisamy
Partner
Sri Maruthi Processors
Petitioners 2 and 3 are residing at
Pillaiyar Koil Thottam
Lakshmi Nagar
Kalingarayanpalayam
H/o. Mettunasuvampalayam
Erode and Distict .. Petitioners
Versus
K. Kumarasamy .. Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 654 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1811 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.II) Erode and District.
Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 2057 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.II) Erode and District.
Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1886 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.II) Erode and District.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Nalliyappan
for Mr. I.C. Vasudevan
in all the Criminal Revision Cases
For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar
for Mr. N. Manokaran in Crl.R.C. No. 654
and Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012
Mr. S. Dhanasekaran in Crl.R.C. No. 655
COMMON ORDER
All the three Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the common order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Court below, by which the petitions filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act were allowed.
2. The petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 was filed by R. Subramaniam, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 654 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 was filed by R. Karuppanasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 120 of 2012 was filed by K. Kumarasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012 for dishonour of the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. Pending the aforesaid S.T.C. Nos. 110, 94 and 120 of 2012 respectively, the respondent/complainant herein have filed Petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in (i) Crl.M.P. No. 1811 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 (ii) Crl.M.P. No. 2057 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 and (iii) Crl.M.P. No. 1886 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 120. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is that during the course of cross-examination, the accused have denied that they did not receive any money at all from the respondents/ complainants by executing promisory notes or any other instruments and therefore, in order to disprove such an averment in the cross-examination, it has become necessary to file the petition praying to pass appropriate orders directing to take left hand thumb impressions of the accused in the open court, send the promisory notes in the above case and the thumb impression taken in the open court to Government hand writing and finger print expert at Chennai for comparision and call for a report. The petitioners/accused have also filed their counter before the court below opposing the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court below, after hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents/complainants and allowed the petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case are filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though the cheques in question were issued by the petitioners/accused and also signed by them, the transaction was not supported by any consideration or the cheques were not issued for discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Therefore, the petitioners/accused are no way liable or responsible to pay the cheque amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, the petitioners, as accused in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are entitled to maintain silence and it is for the respondents/ complainants to prove their respective case by letting in oral and documentary evidence. While so, the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused, cannot be compelled or forced to affix their thumb impressions in the open Court which would amount to crippling the right of the accused in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. When the petitioners/accused have denied the execution of promisory notes, they cannot be called upon to affix their thumb impression in the open Court which is in violation of the protection guaranteed to an accused under Article 20 (3) of The Constitution of India, wherein it is provided that no accused can be compelled to give evidence against his own case. Therefore, the direction issued by the Court below, directing the petitioners/accused to affix the thumb impression in the open Court amounts to denial of legal right vested with the petitioners/accused and it is liable to be interfered by this Court.
5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in (Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra) (2011 (1) CTC 621 to contend that protection under Article 20 (3) of The Constitution of India does not extend to any kind of evidence but only to self-incriminating statements relating to charges brought against an accused. Relying on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused would contend that any evidence, if it is compelled to be given by the accused, is illegal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further relied on the decision reported in (Smt. Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka) (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 908 (SC) for the proposition that right against self-incrimination is a vital safeguard against torture and other 'third-degree methods' that could be used to elicit information. The compulsory administration of such techniqes violates the right against self-incrimination. Article 20 (3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20 (3) aims to prevent the forcible conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a 'testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents/complaints would contend that the petitioners/accused admits the issuance of the cheques in question and also admitted the signatures thereon. The cheques were admittedly issued in pursuant to a money transaction between the parties. The cheques were issued pursuant to the loan amount received by the petitioners/accused. On receipt of the loan amount, the petitioners/accused not only signed the promisory note but also affixed the thumb impression thereon. The petitioners/accused have issued the cheques in question to discharge their legally enforceable debt, however, during the course of cross-examination, the petitioners/accused denied the execution of the promisory note. The cheques as well as the promisory notes were also marked as document in the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore, the burden is on the respondents/complainants to prove their case that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt and that the petitioners/accused have borrowed the amount after signing the promisory notes. Further, the cheques were issued by the accused in the capacity of Partner of the accused company towards the debt incurred under the promisory notes and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Under those circumstances, the respondents/complainants have filed the instant applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for appropriate direction to direct the second petitioner/accused to affix his thumb impression in the open court and to send it for comparision with the signatures of the petitioners/accused in the promisory notes for the opinion of the Government hand writing and finger print expert at Chennai.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents/complainants further submitted that the petitioners/accused cannot have any grievance if they were called upon to affix their thumb impressions in the open Court for comparision because, after comparision by an expert, if the signature or thumb impression is not that of the petitioners/accused, the whole case projected by the respondents/complainants will go and therefore also, seeking expert opinion will only enable the trial court to come to a just and correct conclusion with respect to the proceedings pending before it. The learned counsel for the respondents/complainants only plead that now there are advanced and latest scientific methods available and taking aid of such advancement will only enable the trial court to come to a just conclusion. In any event, inasmuch as the petitioners/ accused have denied the execution of the promisory notes, it has become necessary for the respondents/complainants to file the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Unless such a comparision is made, the respondent/complainant cannot prove their case and to disprove the averment of the petitioners/accused. Under those circumstances, the Court below is right in allowing the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore interference of this Court is not warranted.
9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants relied on the decision reported in (Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India) AIR 2011 SC 1436 = 2011 (1) SCC (Crl) 706 to contend that when an accused is called upon by the Court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Cout held that an accused can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, inspite of effort at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness'.
10. I heard the counsel for both sides and given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged on behalf of both sides. The respondents/ complainants have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners/accused for dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioners/accused. According to the respondents/complainants, the accused have received the amount and executed a promisory note in their favour. The promisory notes were not only signed but the thumb impression was also affixed. However, during the course of trial, the petitioners/accused have denied the execution of the promisory note and therefore, the respondents/ complainants have filed the petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to direct the petitioners/accused to affix the thumb impression in the open court and to direct the finger print experts to submit a report by comparing such thumb impressions affixed in the open Court with the admitted signatures. According to the respondents/complainants, when once the admitted signature with the finger print impressions affixed in the open Court is compared, it will put an end to the criminal proceedings. In catena of decisions, this Honourable Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court, by interpreting Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311-A of Criminal Procedure Code held that such comparision will not amount to compelling the accused to give evidence against him. The court below, after considering the evidence available on record, allowed the petitions filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, against which the present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed.
11. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners/accused is that the respondent/complainant have to prove their case by their own oral or documentary evidence and the petitioners/accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against their own interest. Further, the petitioners, as accused, are entitled to maintain silence in a criminal proceedings and therefore, compelling the petitioners/accused to affix their thumb impression in the open court is against the protection guaranteed under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Court below, by allowing the petitions filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act has compelled and coerced the accused to give the thumb impression for comparing the same with the disputed document.
12. In the counter filed before the court below, the petitioners/accused denied the execution of the promisory note, but not denied the signatures in the cheque. With this background, it has to be considered whether by allowing the applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court below has compelled the accused to give any statement or evidence against his own case. 13. In this context, reference can usefully be made to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
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.
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present:- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned, as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the Court shall summon and examine and recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
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 sectiojn unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding."
14. A reading of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act would indicate that the Court may summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act also applies to comparision of the thumb impression with the admitted signature. In this context, reference can usefully be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram (1979 Crl LJ 17 SC = AIR 1979 SC 14 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court discussed as to the scope of the powers of Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to direct an accused person to give his specimen writings. In that case, the document, which was purported to have been written by the accused could not be compared by a hand writing expert without any specimen signature because the accused was absconding and failed to give any specimen writing. It was contended that the document is a very vital document to establish the case against the accused and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court should direct the accused Pali Ram to give his specimen writings, and forward the same along with the original documents. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi allowed the application against which the accused preferred a revision before the High Court of Delhi. The matter was referred to a Division Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court, delhi set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. As against the same, the State has preferred the Criminal Appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court in para No.10, 17, 24, 25, 32, 33 and 34 held as follows:-
"10. The question that falls to be determined in this case is:
"Whether a Magistrate in the course of an enquiry or trial on being moved by the prosecution, is competent under Section 73, Evidence Act, to direct the accused person to give his specimen handwriting so that the same may be sent along with the disputed writing to the Government Expert of Questioned Documents for examination, "with a view to have the necessary comparison" ?
17. At the outset, we may make it clear that the instant case is not one where the Magistrate had made the impugned order in the course of police investigation. Here, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of these two companion cases. The evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses has been recorded. The problem before us is, therefore, narrower than the one which was before the Patna, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the aforesaid cases. All that we have to consider is, whether the High Court was right in holding that the order dated May 20, 1972, of the Magistrate calling upon the accused before it, to give his specimen handwriting, was "beyond the scope of Section 73, Evidence Act".
24. A sample writing taken by the Court under the second paragraph of Section 73, is, in substance and reality, the same thing as "admitted writing" within the purview of the first paragraph of Section 73, also. The first paragraph of the Section, as already seen, provides for comparison of signature, writing, etc. purporting to have been written by a person with others admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person. But it does not specifically say by whom such comparison may be made. Construed in the light of the English Law on the Subject, which is the legislative source of this provision, it is clear that such comparison may be made by a handwriting expert (Section 45) or by one familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned (Section 47) or by the Court. The two paragraphs of the Section are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary to each other.
25. Section 73 is therefore to be read as a whole, in the light of Section 45. Thus read, it is clear that a Court holding an inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence triable by itself or by the Court of Session, does not exceed its powers under Section 73 if, in the interests of justice, it directs an accused person appearing before it, to give his sample writing to enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or approved by the Court, irrespective of whether his name was suggested by the prosecution or the defence, because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Court before which he is ultimately put up for trial, to compare the disputed writing with his (accused's) admitted writing, and to reach its own conclusion with the assistance of the expert.
32. Since even where proof of handwriting which is in nature comparison, exists, a duty is cast on the Court to use its own eyes and mind to compare, the admitted writing with the disputed one to verify and reach its own conclusion, it will not be wrong to say that when a Court seised of a case, directs an accused person present before it to write down a sample writing, such direction in the ultimate analysis, "is for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare" the writing so written with the writing alleged to have been written by such person, within the contemplation of Section 73. That is to say, the words 'for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare' do not exclude the use of such "admitted" or sample writing for comparison with the alleged writing of the accused, by a handwriting expert cited as a witness by any of the parties. Even where no such expert witness is cited or examined by either party, the Court may, if it thinks necessary for the ends of justice, on its own motion, call an expert witness, allow him to compare the sample writing with the alleged writing and thus give his expert assistance to enable the Court to compare the two writings and arrive at a proper conclusion.
33. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that in passing the orders dated May 20, 1972 relating to the disposal of the applications dated December 11, 1970, the learned Additional District Magistrate did not exceed his powers under Section 73, Evidence Act. The learned Judges of the High Court were not right in holding that in directing the accused by his said Order dated May 20, 1972, the Magistrate acted beyond the scope of Section 73 or in a manner which was not legal.
34. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restore the order dated May 20, 1972, of the Magistrate who may now repeat his direction to the accused to write down the sample writing. If the accused refuses to comply with the direction, it will be open to the Court concerned to draw under Section 114, Evidence Act, such adverse presumption as may be appropriate in the circumstances. If the accused complies with the direction, the Court will in accordance with its order dated May 20, 1972, send the writing so obtained, to a senior Government Expert of Questioned Documents, named by it, for comparison with the disputed writing and then examine him as a Court witness.
15. From a reading of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is very clear that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Courts may, if it thinks necessary for meeting the ends of justice, either on its own motion or on the application seeking expert opinion, allow such application for comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature and such a procedure cannot be said to be against the protection guaranteed to an accused under Article 20 (3) of The Constitution of India.
16. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in (Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka) 1997 7 SCC 110 wherein in para No.37, it was held as follows:-
"37. This section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc., allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc., admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen writing or fingerprints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by any one familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself."
17. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant reported in(Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India) AIR 2011 SC 1436 = 2011 (1) SCC (Crl) 706 the Honourable Supreme Court held in para No. 75 and 77 as follows:-
"75. Another question which we have to consider is whether the Police (CBI) had the power under the Cr.P.C. to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert. It was pointed out that during investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to give his specimen signature on the asking of the police and only in the amendment of the Cr.P.C. in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused to give his specimen signature for the purpose of investigation. Hence, it was pointed out that taking of his signature/writings being per se illegal, the report of the expert cannot be used as evidence against him.
77...... The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether a direction given by a Court to an accused person present in Court to give his specimen writing and signature for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.......
When an accused person is called upon by the Court or any other authority, holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. The giving of a 'personal testimony' must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, inspite of effort at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness'.
..... Giving thumb impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'
18. In the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court the decision of the larger bench reported in (State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad) AIR 1961 SC 1808 was also relied on wherein the larger bench has clearly held that specimen or handwriting or signature or finger impression by themselves will not constitute testimony at all. It was further held that a finger impression will never change and therefore, for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion, comparing the finger impression during the course of any investigation or proceeding cannot be said to be illegal. It was also held that such evidence namely finger impression or signature is a third category of material evidence and it is outside the limits of testimony. Therefore, the protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in respect of a direction to the accused to affix his or her thumb impression before the Court for the purpose of comparision.
19. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. provides for summoning material witness, or examine person present in the Court. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was amended and Section 311-A was inserted by Act 25 of 2005 and it came into force with effect from 23.06.2006. The amendment was made to the effect that 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. Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram babu Mishra) AIR 1980 SC 791. Therefore, in view of the statutory provision namely Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. the court below is empowered to call upon the accused to give the thumb impression and it cannot be said to be in violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
20. As far as the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused reported in (Smt. Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka) (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 908 (SC) it cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with adoption of the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques namely nacro-analysis, polygraph-examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) in the course of investigation in the criminal cases. Even in that decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held in para No.133 as follows:-
133. .......The taking of impressions or parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, so as to arm the agents of the law and the law Courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice.
In the light of the above discussion and following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned supra, I am of the view that the order passed by the Court below, directing the petitioners/accused to give thumb impression in the open Court for the purpose of comparision with the admitted signature is in consonance with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and it cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
05-10-2012 rsh Index : Yes Internet : Yes B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh Criminal Revision Case Nos. 654, 655 and 657 of 2012 05-10-2012