Courts Can Order Specimen Writings for Handwriting Analysis: Upholds Magistrate's Decision

The Supreme Court held that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, a Court can direct an accused to provide specimen writings for comparison by a handwriting expert. The Court concluded that the Magistrate acted within his powers in directing the accused to give specimen handwriting for comparison. The Court also determined that such a direction does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the Magistrate to proceed with obtaining the specimen writing for comparison by a senior Government Expert.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of powers of the Court u/s 73, Evidence Act.
2. Whether the Magistrate acted within his powers by directing the accused to give specimen handwriting for comparison by an expert.
3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in relation to Section 73, Evidence Act.

Summary:

1. Scope of Powers of the Court u/s 73, Evidence Act:
The core issue is whether Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowers a Court to direct an accused to provide specimen writings for comparison by a handwriting expert. The Court held that Section 73 allows a Court to direct any person present in Court to write words or figures for comparison purposes. This includes accused persons, and such specimen writings can be used for comparison by a handwriting expert to assist the Court in reaching its own conclusion.

2. Magistrate's Powers and Actions:
The Magistrate directed the accused to give his specimen handwriting, which was to be sent to the Government Expert of Questioned Documents for comparison with the disputed writing. The High Court had previously set aside this order, deeming it beyond the scope of Section 73. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the Magistrate acted within his powers under Section 73. The ultimate purpose of obtaining the specimen writing was to enable the Court to compare it with the disputed writing, with the expert's assistance.

3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The Court addressed whether directing an accused to give specimen handwriting violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. It was held that such a direction does not compel the accused "to be a witness against himself," and therefore, does not offend Article 20(3). This stance was supported by the precedent set in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Magistrate's order. The Magistrate was directed to repeat his direction to the accused to provide specimen writing. If the accused refuses, the Court may draw an adverse presumption u/s 114, Evidence Act. If complied with, the specimen writing should be sent to a senior Government Expert for comparison, and the expert should be examined as a Court witness. The case was ordered to proceed with utmost expedition.

---