Police Power To Obtain Handwriting, Signatures Exists Independently Of S.311-A CrPC: HP High Court Dismisses Revision Against CBI Probe
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Special Judge holding that the power to obtain handwriting and signatures is an investigative power and not exclusively dependent on Section 311-A CrPC. The Court clarified that treating Section 311-A of CrPC as the sole source of power to obtain specimen signatures and handwriting...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Special Judge holding that the power to obtain handwriting and signatures is an investigative power and not exclusively dependent on Section 311-A CrPC.
The Court clarified that treating Section 311-A of CrPC as the sole source of power to obtain specimen signatures and handwriting would unnecessarily curtail the investigative authority of the police.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “To say that Section 311 A, Cr. PC. is the only repository of the power to obtain signatures and handwriting from the accused during investigation would amount to denuding a power that always existed with the police.“Hence, it is difficult to agree with the submission that the CBI had no jurisdiction to take the specimen signatures.”
The Case arose after a charge sheet was filed by CBI alleging that the petitioner,Mrs Pali Diwan, Partner of M/s Resource Foods, had submitted an application, to avail a non-recurring grant-in-aid for setting up the Integrated Food Chain Project.
According to the charge sheet the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to obtain the grant using forged invoices and fabricated documents.
The Petitioner filed a discharge application before the trial court, contending that there was insufficient material to proceed against them and the report of the handwriting expert was also based on the photocopies which is inadmissible evidence.
However, the application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner and that her defence could not be examined in detail at the stage of discharge.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court asserting that she has nothing to do with commission of the offence.
She contended that she did not submit any forged documents and the charge sheet did not disclose that the petitioner had signed, executed or presented any document to the Ministry.
After examining the record, the Court observed that the quotations and invoices were edited and altered before being submitted to the Ministry which showed that the petitioner had submitted a proposal annexing forged documents.
Further the Court clarified that the petitioner was not being prosecuted merely due to her position as a partner but due to specific allegations of submission of forged documents along with the proposal.
Thus, the Court upheld the Trial Court's findings and dismissed the petition.
Case Name:Pali Diwan v/s Central Bureau of Investigations
Case No.: Cr. Rev. No.532 of 2024
Date of Decision: 01.01.2026
For the Petitioners: Mr.N.K. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor.