Not Essential To Arrest Person Who Voluntarily Appears Before Magistrate For Giving Specimen Signature Or Handwriting: Delhi High Court
Nupur Thapliyal
27 Dec 2024 4:41 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that it is not essential to arrest a person who voluntarily appears before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the application filed by the Investigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or handwriting.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma upheld the constitutional validity of proviso to Section 311A of CrPC.
Section 311A of CrPC provides that the Magistrate has the power to order persons to give specimen signatures or handwriting for carrying any investigation or proceedings. The proviso states that no order shall be made under the provision unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with the investigation or proceedings.
The bench ruled that the proviso to Section 311A of the CrPC is directory in nature and not mandatory.
“…the proviso to Section 311A of the CrPC, being directory in nature, is constitutionally valid as the same does not impose any excessive restriction on the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
The Bench was answering a criminal reference received by the trial court on the issue.
The Court observed that the provision in question was meant to safeguard the interest of an accused person as well as to ensure that the investigation is not impeded in any manner.
It added that if the proviso is held to be mandatory, then it would run contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence which provide that arrest of an accused person is not a mandate but a discretion vested with the Investigating Officer which has to be exercised fairly and in accordance with law.
“In view of the aforesaid circumstances and discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the expression “shall” appearing in proviso to Section 311A of the CrPC has to be interpreted as directory in nature which is also fortified by the position in the newly enacted procedural law as pointed out hereinabove,” the Court said.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1389
