S.311A CrPC | Absence Of Formal Arrest Doesn't Bar Direction To Give Handwriting Samples: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that absence of formal arrest does not bar a Magistrate from directing a person to furnish handwriting or signature samples under Section 311A CrPC.For context, Section 311A CrPC empowers the Magistrate to order persons to give specimen signatures or handwriting for carrying out any investigation or proceedings. It adds a proviso that no order shall be made unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a literal reading of the provision would defeat the purpose of investigation.The judge clarified that the requirement of arrest applies only to the accused and not other persons connected to the investigation.In this regard, the Court relied on Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) where the Allahabad High Court also held that if Section 311-A is construed in the manner that no person unless arrested in connection with the enquiry or trial involved, can be directed by the Magistrate, persons like the complainant or witnesses, who would hardly ever be arrested, would always be away from the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 311-A Cr.P.C.“The import of the proviso is that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 311-A Cr.P.C, would be available in case of the accused alone, if he has been arrested in connection with the relative inquiry or trial, but not otherwise. The Proviso would not apply in the case of “any other person”, other than the accused. It would not apply in case of a complainant, a witness, other than an accused. Any other construction would lead to an absurdity, which the legislature could never have intended,” it held.The Court thus dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order directing the Petitioner to give his handwriting and signature specimens for the purpose of investigation of a forgery FIR.The petitioner argued that Section 311A CrPC permits collection of handwriting samples only from a person who has been arrested, and since he was never taken into custody and had been shown in Column 12 (suspect) of the charge sheet, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such a direction.Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the Petitioner was “on Court Bail”. Since the accused could only be on Court Bail if he was arrested in some manner at some point in time, the Court said it is enough to bring Petitioner's case out of the exception provided in the given proviso.The High Court further noted accepting the Petitioner's argument would lead to an absurd situation, where an accused who is not formally arrested—often in compliance with safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar—would be placed in a more advantageous position than an accused who was arrested.As such, it dismissed the petition.Appearance: Ms. Rebecca M John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Ms. Jaisal Singh and Mr. Pravir, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates for State with SI Kamal, P.S.: Tughlak Road. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Asija and Ms. Mansi Singh, Advocate for R-2.Case title: Ravinder Singh Gandoak v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)Case no.: W.P. (CRL) 317/2023Click here to read order

S.311A CrPC | Absence Of Formal Arrest Doesn't Bar Direction To Give Handwriting Samples: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags