MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether during investigation the Judicial Magistrate can direct a person to give his thumb impression or not ?

(2.) To appreciate and said controversy, it will be appropriate to mention some of the relevant facts. A case is being investigated against Mukhtiar Singh petitioner with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC. The prosecution/State had moved an application with the learned Judicial Magistrate for directing the petitioner to give his thumb impressions for comparing the same which are required in investigation of the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Zira relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. State 1975 CLR 46 : (1975 Cri LJ 884) rejected the request of the prosecution/State. The State preferred a criminal revision petition in the Court of Sessions at Ferozepur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 27-5-1996 allowed the revision petition. It was held that such an order could be passedduring investigation directing an accused-person to give his thumb impression. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, highlighted the fact that during investigation such an order could not be passed. Firstly it will be compelling the petitioner to be a witness against himself and secondly he urged that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, such a direction could not be given during the course of investigation. It could only be done during the trial or an enquiry before the Court. Needless to say that the learned counsel appearing for the State urged otherwise and his submissions were confined to the fact that the petitioner was not being compelled to be a witness against himself. During investigation such a direction indeed could be given.