Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)Section 5 in The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920
Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad vs The State on 20 March, 1957
and Priti Ranjan Ghosh &
Ors. v. The State(3), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in Dharamvir Singh v. State(4), the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad v. The State(5),
the Orissa High Court in Srikant Rout v. State of Orissa(6)
and the Allahabad High Court in the judgment under appeal.
Gulzar Khan And Ors. vs State on 24 January, 1962
A
contrary view was taken by the Patna High Court in Gulzar
Khan & Ors. v. State(7) and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in B. Rami Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh.(8) We do
not agree with the latter view. We accordingly dismiss the
appeal and while doing so we would suggest the suitable
legislation may be made on the analogy of s. 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act, to provide for the
investiture of Magistrates with the power to issue
directions to any person, including an accused person, to
give specimen signatures and writings.
B. Rami Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 April, 1971
A
contrary view was taken by the Patna High Court in Gulzar
Khan & Ors. v. State(7) and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in B. Rami Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh.(8) We do
not agree with the latter view. We accordingly dismiss the
appeal and while doing so we would suggest the suitable
legislation may be made on the analogy of s. 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act, to provide for the
investiture of Magistrates with the power to issue
directions to any person, including an accused person, to
give specimen signatures and writings.
T. Subbiah vs S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar on 17 February, 1969
The view expressed by us in the earlier paragraphs, on
the construction of s. 73, Evidence Act was the view taken
by the Madras High Court in T. Subbiah v. S. K. D. Ramaswamy
Nadar(1), the Calcutta High Court in Farid Ahmed v. the
State(2) (Mitter J., at page 32).
State (Delhi Administration) vs Pali Ram on 26 September, 1978
Section 73 of the Evidence Act was considered by us in
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram(1), where we held
that a Court holding an enquiry under the Criminal Procedure
Code was entitled under s. 73 of the Evidence Act to direct
an accused person appearing before it to give his specimen
handwriting to enable the Court by which he may be tried to
compare it with disputed writings. The present question
whether such a direction, under s. 73 of the Evidence Act,
can be given when the matter is still under investigation
and there is no proceeding before the Court was expressly
left open.