S 311-A of CRPC is not retrospective,it is prospective in nature?

After referring to Section 5 of the Identification of
Prisoners Act, 1980 in Ram Babu Misra’s case, this Court
suggested that a suitable legislation be made along its lines to
provide for investiture of Magistrates with powers to issue
directions to any person including an accused person to give
specimen signatures and handwriting. Accordingly, a new Section
311-A was inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section
311-A Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“Section 311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen
signatures or handwriting.-If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied
that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this
Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused
person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an
order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order
relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place
specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or
handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the
person has at some time been arrested in connection with such
investigation or proceeding.”
The said amendment is prospective in nature and not
retrospective.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2012
SUKH RAM 
V
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4146 SC

Print Page

Whether natural writing is to be preferred over specimen handwriting in identification of handwriting?

Certain curious features regarding the opinion of the expert have been referred to by Mr. Manohar and they may be briefly stated. It is axiomatic in the identification of handwriting that natural writings form a much better basis for observation and conclusion then specimens obtained from a writer. In the present case, during investigation previous writings of the present accused were obtained. They are Exhs. 53 to 55 made by the accused, two in January 1967 and one in March 1967. As discussed above, while studying the two crucial writings, namely the signature on the reverse of Exh. 36 and the signature on Exh. 37, what the expert does is to compare the disputed writings with the specimens obtained from the accused in prison. There is no reference whatever to the expert having compared the previous admitted writings Exhs, 52 to 55 with the disputed ones. Mr. Manohar has contended that it is not a case just of an omission to examine the previous writings and compare them. He states that it could very well be that the expert with his extensive experience of examining documents as well as deposing in Court would have examined a natural writing and noted his conclusion. Yet, it must be because he found nothing any common between the previous admitted writings, and the disputed writings, that the expert said nothing on the point. The contention is justified.

Equivalent Citation: 1973MhLJ855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Appeal No. 259 of 1968

Decided On: 10.01.1973

 Jiwan Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.B. Padhye and G.G. Bhojraj, JJ.

Print Page

Rajasthan HC: What procedure is to be adopted for obtaining specimen hand-writing to get accurate report?

I may in this connection state the rule as to how the specimen hand-writing should be taken. In obtaining a specimen hand-writing the same type of paper, the same colour of ink and the same kind of medium as were used in the disputed handwriting should be used as far as possible. 

Rajasthan High Court

Abdul Gani And Anr. vs Devi Lal And Anr. on 5 October, 1959

Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Raj 77

Bench: L Chhangani

Print Page

Whether the court can direct accused to give long passages and pages for specimen handwriting or signature?

The   argument   of   the   learned   counsel   for 
Petitioner­Accused is that under Section 73 of the 
Indian   Evidence   Act   the   Court   could   direct   the 

prosecutrix   to   give   writing   in   compliance   of   the 
requirement of the handwriting expert. Section 73 
of the Indian Evidence Act, reads as under:­
“73.   Comparison   of   signature, 
writing or seal with others admitted 
or   proved.­  In   order   to   ascertain 
whether a signature, writing or seal 
is   that   of   the   person   by   whom   it 
purports   to   have   been   written   or 
made,   any   signature,   writing,   or 
seal   admitted   or   proved   to   the 
satisfaction   of   the   Court   to   have 
been written or made by that person 
may   be   compared   with   the   one   which 
is   to   be   proved,   although   that 
signature, writing, or seal has not 

been   produced   or   proved   for   any 
other purpose.
    The   Court   may   direct   any   person 
present in Court to write any words 
or   figures   for   the   purpose   of 
enabling   the   Court   to   compare   the 
words or figures so written with any 
words   or   figures   alleged   to   have 
If   the   above   Section   is   perused,   it   is 
been written by such person.”
clear   from   the   First   Part   that   in   order   to 
ascertain   whether   a   writing   is   of   the   person   by 
whom   it   purports   to   have   been   written,   any 
signature   or   writing   which   has   been   admitted   or 
proved   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Court   to   have 
been   written   or   made   by   that   person,   may   be 
compared   with   the   one   which   is   to   be   proved. 
Second   Part   of   the   Section   gives   power   to   the 
Court   to   direct   any   person   present   in   Court   to 
write “any words” or “figures” for the purpose of 
enabling   the   Court   to   compare   the   words   or 

figures.   Thus,   Section   73   of   the   Indian   Evidence 
Act is to enable the Court to compare and to that 
end Court can ask the person to write any words or 
figures. Although how many words or figures is not 
prescribed,  it has  to be reasonable.   It does  not 
mean   that   long   passages   and   pages   as   is   being 
sought, could be asked to be written down. Still, 

the   Respondent   No.2­   prosecutrix   did   give   sample 
handwriting   in   a   long   passage   as   well   as   her 
signatures with different dates.


                                       
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL  REVISION  APPLICATION  NO.48  OF 2014

Dr. Suyog  Dinkarrao Vyas  Vs        The State of Maharashtra,

              CORAM:    A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
   
 Dated : 29TH APRIL, 2014 

Citation; 2014 CRLJ(NOC) 444 Bom

Print Page