Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.78 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Gulzar Khan And Ors. vs State on 24 January, 1962
Following the ratio of Gulzar Khan v. State of Bihar
(supra), it was held that the Court does not exceed its
powers under the Section in directing an accused to give his
thumb-impression to enable the police to make investigation
of an offence as even in such a case the purpose is to
enable the Court before which he is ultimately put up for
trial to compare the alleged impressions of the accused with
the admitted thumb-impression.
Section 47 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs Chandra Gupta & Co. on 4 May, 1976
The dictum in Hiralal Agarwala's case (supra) was
followed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
in State v. Poonam Chand Gupta, (supra) wherein it was held
that the second clause of Section 73 limits the power of the
court to direct a person present in court to write any words
or figures only where the court itself is of the view that
it is necessary for its own purposes to take such writing in
order to compare the words or figures so written by such
person. The power does not extend to permitting one or the
other party before the court to ask the court to take such
writing for the purpose of its evidence on its own case.
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
B. Rami Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 April, 1971
In B. Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra)
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a similar view.
Hira Lal Agarwala vs State Of Bihar on 25 April, 1956
In the instant case, the Magistrate, as the extract
from his Order dated May 20, 1972, shows after considering
the peculiar circumstances of the case, and recalling the
observation of the Calcutta High Court in Hira Lal Agarwalla
v. State (ibid) to the effect that Section 73 entitled "the
court to assist itself for a proper conclusion in the
interest of justice", expressly "applied this test to the
present case". The peculiar circumstances which weighed with
the Magistrate in directing the accused to execute sample
writing to be compared, in the first instance, by the
Government Expert of Questioned Documents, included the
contumacious conduct of the accused and the resiling of the
material witness, Tek Chand, which, according to Mr. Marwah,
was possibly due to his having been suborned or won over by
the accused. It was apparent from the record that the
accused was playing hide and seek with the process of law
and was avoiding to appear and give his sample writing to
the police. The Magistrate therefore, had good reason to
hold that the assistance of the Government Expert of
Questioned Documents was essential in the interest of
justice to enable the Magistrate to compare the sample and
the question writings with the expert assistance so obtained
and then to reach a just and correct conclusion about their
identity. Although the order of the Magistrate is somewhat
inartistically worded, its substance was clear that although
initially, the specimen writing sought from the accused was
to be used for comparison by the Government Expert, the
ultimate purpose was to enable the Court to compare that
specimen writing with the disputed one, Ex. PW. 21F, to
reach a just decision.