https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285123 Handwriting and signature specimens are not "measurements" under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, because that expression is confined to physical characteristics such as finger impressions and footprints. Accordingly, neither the police nor a Magistrate could compel specimen handwriting or signatures under Sections 4 or 5 of that Act; the comparison power instead lay under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Before insertion of Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 23 June 2006, a Magistrate had no express power to direct an accused to furnish specimen handwriting or signatures during investigation. Section 311A later supplied that authority for a Magistrate of the first class. en-us Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285123 Handwriting and signature specimens are not "measurements" under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, because that expression is confined to physical characteristics such as finger impressions and footprints. Accordingly, neither the police nor a Magistrate could compel specimen handwriting or signatures under Sections 4 or 5 of that Act; the comparison power instead lay under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Before insertion of Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 23 June 2006, a Magistrate had no express power to direct an accused to furnish specimen handwriting or signatures during investigation. Section 311A later supplied that authority for a Magistrate of the first class. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285123