PREMANANDA TOSH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether direction given by the Investigating Officer to an accused during investigation to give his specimen signature is a testimonial compulsion and violative of protection given under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India (in short, 'Constitution').

(2.) FACTUAL position is almost undisputed and is as follows:

(3.) IN M.P. Sharma and others. v. Satish Chandra District Magistrate Delhi and Ors.: : : AIR 1954 SC 300, while considering the scope of Article 20(3) it was held that there is no inherent reason to construe that ambit of this fundamental right as comprising a very wide range. Nor would it be legitimate to confine it to the barely literal meaning of the words used, since it is a recognised doctrine that when appropriate, a constitutional provision has to be liberally construed so as to advance the intendment thereof and to prevent its circumvention. The right under Article 20(3) was held to consist of the following three components: