BOJJA KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. During the course of investigation in Crime No.21 of 2001 of Amangal Police Station, the Circle Inspector of Police, Amangal, filed a memo before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalwakurthi, asking for permission to take specimen signature and handwriting of the accused, being petitioner herein. The same has been opposed by the accused on the ground that the police has no right to insist for taking specimen signature in the presence of the Magistrate and sought for dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate directed the accused to furnish handwriting and specimen signature for comparison before the court for the purpose of investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this petition

(2.) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court is not seized of the matter and it has no jurisdiction to compel the accused to furnish specimen signature before the Court. It is also contended that the order passed by the Magistrate has to be quashed and placed reliance on the following decisions, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram and State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor draws my attention to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and contends that the investigating officer can take finger impressions and foot impressions under Section 4 ofthe said Act. It is also contended that it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be quashed, since the investigating officer has right to take specimen signatures and thumb impressions etc.