HIRALAL AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is being proceeded against under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Chalan was submitted against him by the police under Section 6. 120B/379, 466/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereafter the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate commenced an enquiry preliminary to commits merit to the Court. In the course of the enquiry several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of the charges mentioned in the chalan.

(2.) On the 11th of March, 1955 the Public Prosecutor prayed to the court that the petitioner be directed to give his specimen handwriting in court for comparison with the petitioner's disputed writings and for sending the same to the Handwriting Expert attached to the Criminal Investigation Department, Government of West Bengal. As soon as that was proposed to be done objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner to the procedure of compelling the accused person to furnish evidence against himself. The learned Magistrate however overruled that objection, holding that the court was entitled to compare the handwriting of the accused taken in his presence with the disputed writings. Thereafter the petitioner gave his specimen writing on the 9th of March, 1955 in obedience to the order of the Court when his objection to giving the writing had been overruled. On the 24th of March, 1955 the Public Prosecutor wanted to make use of the specimen writings thus obtained from the petitioner and the Bench Clerk attached to the court of the learned Magistrate was examined as a witness who formally proved the writing of the petitioner given in obedience to the order of the court. The effect of that was that this writing furnished by the petitioner became a part of the prosecution evidence. The matter did not rest there. There was a further suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution that the income-tax Department at whose instance the petitioner is being prosecuted, should be allowed to take a photograph of the writing thus obtained from the petitioner in order that the photograph might be sent for comparison to a prosecution witness who was a handwriting expert examined in the case. The idea was that if these fresh materials were made available to the expert he would be in a better position to give the results of his examination and comparison at a later stage of the proceeding. Objection was then taken on behalf of the petitioner that this was a procedure wholly unknown to law and not warranted by the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Apparently the learned Magistrate was not prepared to give effect to the petitioner's objection whereafter an application was made to this court on which the present Rule was issued.

(3.) Mr. Dutta has argued that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is not justified by the provisions of the law. His criticism further is that the Magistrate has compelled the petitioner to incriminate himself by furnishing materials which are now being proposed to be used in evidence against him. This would, according to Mr. Dutta, be not only illegal but unconstitutional.