SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE Vs. DEVARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed by the State. In connection with Crime No. 14/98 of the Kovalam Police Station involving offence under Ss. 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, the Investigating Officer wanted to record the specimen hand-writing of the accused in the case. His request in that regard made to the employer of the accused and subsequent notice to the accused who was on bail to appear before the Investigating Officer did not yield any result and, therefore, he moved the Magistrate before whom the FIR was pending through M.P. 3173/98 to issue directions to the accused to appear before the Court and give the specimen hand-writing. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was invoked. The learned Magistrate, however, refused the request relying on the decision in State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791. The present petition has been filed aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate with a request to quash the same.

(2.) I have heard both sides. In view of the submission by the learned Public Prosecutor that this is perhaps the first time that the question comes up before this Court and that the decision in this case may have serious impact on the freedom and efficiency of investigating officers, I proceed to consider the question in extenso and to consider all the decisions cited by the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The second limb of S. 73 of the Evidence Act, the scope of which is to be interpreted herein, reads as follows :