GULZAR KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Criminal references have been heard together, as they give rise to indentical questions of law regarding the power of the Magistrate to ask the accused to give specimen handwriting, signature, thumb impression, fingerprint, palm print or foot print for comparison, in course of investigation of the case, by a police officer.

(2.) Criminal Reference No. 16 of 1958 relates to the case of Gulzar Khan, Ahmad Khan and Daulat Khan v. State, that is, G.R. Case No. 790 (A) of 1957, in which the learned City Magistrate of Jamshedpur directed the accused on the 13th November, 1957, to appear before Golmuri police station for giving their fingerprints and foot-prints for the purpose of comparison on the prayer made by the investigating Officer by his petition dated the 23rd October, 1957. These accused persons, had, however, been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the 7th October, 1957. The accused made a grievance of the order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, an application was made on their behalf in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of the Magistrate, as the order operated as an infringement of the privileges conferred on them under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the application and made a reference to this Court for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

(3.) Criminal Reference No. 116 of 1958 relates to the case of Shiba Prasad Mukherji v. State under Section 379 read with Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the City Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 59-A of 1958. On the 17th March, 1958, the learned Magistrate ordered the accused to appear before the Sub-Inspector of Sakchi police station on the 25th March, 1958, to give specimens of his signature for the purpose of comparison on a petition filed by the investigating police officer. The accused filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to this Court for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the order of the learned City Magistrate amounts to an infringement of the privileges conferred on the accused under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.