STATE OF U.P. versus RAM BABU MISRA

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 19-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
RAM BABU MISRA 
February 19, 1980 
(R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
l 067 
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 73-Scope of-Comparison of signature, writing 
or seal with others adn1itted or proved-Competency of the Magistrates to gtve 
directio1l to the accused to give specimen signature when the case is sti!J under 
investigation. 
Dismissing the appeal by special Jea\·e, the Court : 
HELD : Though a direction by the Magistrate to the accused to give his 
specimen writing when the case is still under investigation would ~urely be 
in the interests of the administration of justic'e, Section 73 of the E\rideace Act 
does not ena.ble the Magistrate to give such a direction when the case is still 
under investigation. 
[1068G-H] 
The second paragraph of Section 73 'enables the Court to direct any person 
present in Court to give specimen writings "for the purpose of enabling the 
Court to compare" such writings with writings alleged to have been written 
by such p'erson. 
The clear implication of the words "for the purpose of en-
abling the Court to compare" is that there is some proceeding before the Court 
in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for ·the Court 
to compare such writings. 
The direction is to be given for the purpose of 
'enabling the Court to compare' and not for the purpose of enabling the inves-
tigating or other agency 'to compare'. 
If the case is still under investigation 
there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence 
of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. 
The language of 
Section 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give 
~pecimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a 
proceeding 
which may later be' instituted in the Court. 
[1069D-F] 
(ii) Section 73 of the Evidence Act m•akes no distinction between a Civil 
Court and a Criminal Court. It would not be open to a person to seek tlre 
assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other p'erson to give ·sample 
writing under section 73 of the Evidence Act on the pl'ea that it would help him 
to decide whether to institute a civil suit in Which the question would be whether 
certain alleged writing5 are those' of the other person or not. That being the 
position, it should not make any difference if the investigating a.gency seeks 
the assistance of the court under section 73 of the Evidence Act ori the plea 
that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary 
to compare the writings. 
[1069G-H] 
State (Del/ii Admn.) v. Pali Ram, [1979] 1 SCR 931 and State of Bombay 
v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808; distinguished, 
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808; T. Subbaiah v. 
S. K. D. Ramaswamy Nadar, AIR 1970 Mad. 85; Farid Ahmed v. The State, 
AIR 1960 Cal. 32; Priti Ran;an Ghosh and others v. The State, 77 C.W.N. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I!' 
G 
R 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
865; Dharamvir Singh v. 
State, 1975 Crl. 
L.J. 884 (Pb. & Haryana); Brii 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Bhusha11 Raghunandan Pd. v. The State, AIR 1957 M.P. 106; and Srikant Rout 
v. State of Orissa, 1972 (2) CUttack Weekly Reporter 1332; appr<'\''d. 
Guizar Khan and Ors. v. State, AIR 1962 Patna 255 and B. Rami Reddy 
and Ors. v. State of A.P., 1971 Crl. L.J. 1591 (AP); over-ruled. 
[The Court suggested that suitable legislation may be made on the analogy 
of s. 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, to provide for the investiture of 
Magistrates \Vith the power to issue directions tO :1ny 
per~on, i:r:icluding an 
accused person, to give specimen signatures and \Vritings.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1979. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Orde~ dated 
18-12-1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Cr!. Revision No. 170 of 
1975. 
0. P. Rana and M. Ramachandran for the Appellant. 
Nemo for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The Officer who 
was investigating into 
offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code 
alleged against the respondent, Ram Babu Misra, moved the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, to direct the accused to give his specimen 
writing for the purpose of comparison with certain disputed writings. 
The leruved Magistrate held that he had no power to do so when the 
case was still under investigation. 
His view has been upheld by the 
High Court. "'he State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.