REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM SWARUP Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WILSON V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
R. V. RHODES [REFERRED TO]
IN RE PALANI GOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
HOLT V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
IN RE SORUALINGAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
SWARNALINGAM CHETTIAR V. ASSISTANT LABOUR INSPECTOR,KARAIKUDI [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMUTHUKOIL PILLAI V. PERIYASSAMI NADAR [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. NGA TUN HLAING [REFERRED TO]
SUBEDAR V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
DHOOM SINGH V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
M P SHARMA OTHERS VS. SATISH CHANDRA DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BANWARILAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SAILENDRA NATH SINHA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN KESAVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PALANI MOOPAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS PROVINCIAL TYPE FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION VS. RAMALINGA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
VADASSERI THARAWATTIL KARNAVAN AND MANAGER ITTICHATHARA VALIA MANNADIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K P V SHAIK MOHAMED ROWTHER AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision involves the extent and implications of the fundamental right against self-incrimination embodied in Clause (3) of Article 20 of our Constitution in the words : ''No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". Since I propose referring the case to a Division Bench I shall give but a brief account of the facts of the case and the state of the law applicable.

(2.) The facts are these. The applicant, who is an official of the Post Office of Pilibhit, was sent up for trial for the offence of embezzlement under Section 409, I. P. C., and the authorship of certain writings was one of the facts at issue. A specimen of his writing or signature was taken by the Committing Magistrate, but for some undisclosed reason was not sent for expert examination. At the trial before the Sessions Judge the Government counsel applied for sending the specimen to an expert, to which the applicant strongly objected, After hearing the parties the learned Sessions Judge passed an order which was in two parts : first, that the specimen previously taken before the Magistrate be sent for expert examination; and second, that, if the State counsel so liked a fresh specimen be taken from the applicant for purposes of comparison,

(3.) Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge acted manifestly under the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides :

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM SWARUP Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address