B RAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a petition by the accused to revise the order made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty in Crl. M. P, No. 751/70 directing the accused to give specimen hanwriting to the Investigating officer in Crime No. 167 of 1970 of the Gooty Police Station, Mr. Sadasiva Reddy, learned, counsel for the petitioner contended that directing the accused to give his specimen signatures for the purpose of investigating an offence alleged to have been committed, amounts to testimonial compulsion offending Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Mi P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (Jagannadhadas J.)(1) observed that :-

(2.) Analysing the terms in which this fundamental right has been declared in our Constitution, it may be said to consist of the following components ; (1) It is a right pertaining to a person "accused of an offence": (2) It is a protection against "compulsion to be a witness"; and (3) It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence "against himself") Broadly stated the guarantee in Art, 20 (3) is against "testimonial compulsion". But there is no reason to confine it to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. The protection afforded to an accused in so far as it related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the Court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available, therefore, to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Considered in this light, the guarantee under Art. 20 (3)would be available to persons against whom a First Information Report has been recorded as accused therein. It would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against them."

(3.) Dealing with the specific question, where thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm, fingers or specimen writings of the accused are taken, are not included in the expression "to be a wit- ness" their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Majority Judgment in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu(2) held: