Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NAGERCOIL in Christopher Sam Miller vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 November, 2017Matching Fragments
The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Original Petition challenging the notice dated 24.06.2011 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, in Cr.M.P.No.3020 of 2011 in Crime No.47 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police, in and by which the petitioner was directed to appear before the Court on 29.06.2011 for getting specimen signature in connection with the investigation in the Calander Case.
2. (i) The de-facto complainant - one Dr. Ralph Daniel has preferred a complaint on 18.02.2010, stating that he and his aunt are the owners of the land measuring an extent of 63 + cents, situated in Survey No.190/11 at Thirupparabu Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and patta for the said land stands in his name under Patta No.2150. According to the defacto complainant, three months prior to the complaint, the second accused approached him and submitted that he has purchased the land in question vide Document No.141/2000, registered on the file of the Thiruvattar Sub-Registrar Office. The de-facto complainant, therefore, verified the records and came to know that the said land was sold to a third party one Sundarrajan and others by impersonating him as well as the other owner of Leelabai, who is the aunt of the de-facto complainant.
(iv) During the course of investigation in the case in Crime No.47 of 2010, the respondent police filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, under Section 311-A Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.3020 of 2011, dated 22.06.2011 seeking to issue appropriate direction to the petitioner herein to give his specimen signature or thumb impression for the purpose of investigation in this case. The said Petition was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, allowed, issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance before the Court on 29.06.2011 at about 02.00 p.m., for getting his specimen signature or thumb impression. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent. The questions arise for consideration in this case are,
(i) whether the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil is empowered to take specimen signature and thumb impression of the petitioner, who is cited as a witness in the case, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even before the investigation officer filed the charge sheet.
The said amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective?
10. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is seen that if a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or thumb impression, 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 thumb impression. It is by virtue of such powers conferred under Section 311-A of the Code, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil has issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance. The specimen signature of the petitioner is required during the course of investigation into the complaint given by the petitioner who has alleged that the property owned by him was alienated by impersonating him and by creating forged and fabricated records. It is in this context, during the investigation into the complaint given by the petitioner, the investigating agency sought the signature or thumb impression of the petitioner for comparision so as to clinchingly conclude the investigation. Further, during the course of investigation, it has unfolded that the defacto complainant had sent a letter dated 10.08.2010 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, stating that the petitioner, without his knowledge represented him by impersonation, affixed his signature or thumb impression in the documents and thereby executed a sale deed in respect of sale of 63 + cents land in New Survey No.190 of 2011, which was registered in Document No.141 of 2000, for which, investigation is being conducted. The petitioner, however, categorically denied that he did not affix his signature or any thump impression in the document. In order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has really signed the document in question or not, the investigation agency sought his signature and when it was refused by the petitioner, the instant petition has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the investigation agency invoking Section 311-A of the Code in Cr.M.P.No.3020 of 2011, dated 22.06.2011. Having regard to the above facts and the nature of complaint given by the defacto complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, allowed the said petition and granted permission to the respondent police to obtain the signature and thumb impression from the petitioner. For the said purpose, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, issued summons to him to appear before the Court on 29.06.2011 at 2.00 p.m. for getting his specimen signature or thumb impression. Therefore, I hold that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil is empowered to take specimen signature and thumb impression of the petitioner, who is cited as a witness in the case, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even before the investigation officer filed the charge sheet.