TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Magistrate lacks authority to direct specimen writing for investigations under Evidence Act. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Ram Babu Misra</h3> State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Ram Babu Misra - (1980) 2 SCC 343 Issues:1. Whether a Magistrate has the power to direct an accused to give specimen writing during the investigation under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.2. Interpretation of Section 73 of the Evidence Act and its applicability during the investigation stage.3. Comparison of provisions under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act.4. Judicial precedent and conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of whether a Magistrate can direct an accused to provide specimen writing during an investigation under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The case involved an investigation into offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Officer investigating the case sought the accused's specimen writing for comparison with disputed writings. The Magistrate and the High Court held that the Magistrate lacked the power to give such a direction during the investigation. The appellant contended that Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowered the Magistrate to do so.The Court analyzed Section 73 of the Evidence Act, which allows comparison of writings for ascertaining authenticity. The Court noted that the provision enables the Court to direct specimen writing for the purpose of comparison in a proceeding before the Court, not during the investigation stage. The judgment highlighted that the language of Section 73 does not permit the Court to order specimen writing for anticipated future proceedings. The Court emphasized that the provision does not distinguish between Civil and Criminal Courts, indicating that the direction for specimen writing is meant for ongoing proceedings.Additionally, the Court compared Section 73 of the Evidence Act with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, which excludes signature and writing but includes finger impressions. The Court deliberated on the legislative intent behind these provisions and concluded that the exclusion of signature and writing from Section 5 does not impact the interpretation of Section 73. The judgment referred to previous cases and conflicting views on the issue, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The Court suggested legislative intervention to empower Magistrates to direct specimen signatures and writings, akin to the provisions in the Identification of Prisoners Act.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the limitations of a Magistrate's power to direct an accused to provide specimen writing under Section 73 of the Evidence Act during the investigation stage. It emphasizes the importance of statutory provisions and calls for legislative action to address the gaps in the law regarding the collection of specimen signatures and writings during criminal investigations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
