Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. To say that Section 311-A is the only repository of the power to obtain signatures and handwriting from the accused during investigation, would amount to denuding a power which always existed with the police. Section 311-A was introduced in the Statute nearly 25 years, after the Supreme Court made a suggestion in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra [(1980) 2 SCC 341].

16. In my considered opinion Section 311A Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision which comes to the aid of the Investigating Agency, when a suspect or accused refuses to give his specimen signatures or handwriting. Section 311A Cr.P.C. reads as under:

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.]"

If the opinion of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court is to be accepted, then in every case, the police will have to necessarily arrest the accused before making an application under Section 311A Cr.P.C. as set out in the proviso to Section 311A Cr.P.C. It is trite law that arrest is not compulsory in every case as held in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1994 SC 1349]. If a Police Officer, as pointed out by me in the illustration given above, consciously decides to follow the Supreme Court dictum in Joginder Kumar's case and does not effect arrest, then will he be precluded from obtaining specimen handwritings and signatures from the accused? If the Delhi Full Bench judgment is to be followed, then it would lead to anomalous results. The Police will have to willy nilly arrest a person if they have to obtain specimen handwritings and signatures under Section 311A. The effect of the proviso to Section 311A has not been discussed by the Delhi Full Bench.