"Kerala High Court: Magistrate Authorized to Order Handwriting Samples Even Without Arrest, Rules Section 5 of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified that under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, a magistrate holds the authority to direct individuals accused in criminal cases to provide signatures and handwriting samples, regardless of whether they have been formally arrested. The decision came to light in the case of Faizal KV v State of Kerala & Anr., where Justice Raja Vijayaraghanav V upheld a magistrate court's order. The order pertained to an accused person who was granted anticipatory bail yet was required to submit a handwriting sample for a forgery investigation.
The petitioner argued that lacking formal arrest, the magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to issue such an order. However, the High Court highlighted that the magistrate was well within their rights, as stated by Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act.
The Court emphasized that Section 5 empowers magistrates to issue directions to any individual, with no stipulation that these directions are exclusive to those arrested for offenses under prevailing laws. The petitioner, facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to forgery and cheating, was alleged to have secured a teaching position using forged documents.
During the investigation, authorities aimed to compare the petitioner's handwriting with entries in a service book. Suspecting disparities, they sought a handwriting sample through a court application. This request was granted by the magistrate court, prompting the petitioner's appeal to the High Court.
Advocate Shameem Ahamed, representing the petitioner, argued that the magistrate's directive was inappropriate since the petitioner was out on anticipatory bail. Ahamed contended that Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 3 of the Identification Act, 2022, both require the accused to be under arrest before such an order can be issued.
Contrarily, the Public Prosecutor countered, asserting that the petitioner had indeed surrendered to the jurisdictional court and executed a bail bond, constituting a form of arrest.
Ultimately, the High Court sided with the State after an examination of Section 5 of the 2022 Act and relevant legal precedents. The judge ruled that a magistrate can direct an accused person to provide signature and handwriting samples, even in the absence of formal arrest.
Moreover, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that this act infringed upon testimonial compulsion. The judge referred to the Supreme Court's stance in Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, where the right to privacy was deemed subject to compelling public interest.
The High Court clarified that the collection of handwriting samples does not breach privacy rights, provided proper rules and standards are established under the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act.
As a result, the Court dismissed the petition, with representation from advocates MP Shameem Ahamed and Akhil Philip Manithottiyil for the petitioner, and Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan for the State."
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Kerala High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act Section 5 magistrate handwriting sample accused arrest forgery case anticipatory bail observation Justice Raja Vijayaraghanav V signature comparison Indian Penal Code (IPC) cheating forged certificates investigation service book entries handwriting expert application jurisdictional court bail bond Public Prosecutor Supreme Court right to privacy Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat testimonial compulsion legal precedent dismissal representation advocates MP Shameem Ahamed Akhil Philip Manithottiyil Vipin Narayan.
