SUKHRAM versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 25-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 254 
SUKHRAM 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 224of2012) 
JULY25,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.311-A - Power of the 
Magistrate to order 
person to give specimen signatures or 
handwriting - Alleged incident of misappropriation of funds took 
place during 1983~86 - Trial court discarded the opinion of 
handwriting expert on the ground that the direction given by 
Executive Magistrate to the witnesses to give handwriting specimen 
was not warranted as Executive Magistrate did not have authority 
to enquire into or try the offence -·Trial court held that in absence 
of legal evidence, it cannot be held that the accused had entered 
into conspiracy of committing forgery and cheating and acquitted 
the appellant and others - High Court found appellant guilty of 
forging loan applications and convicted him u/s.468 -
Whether 
the Judicial Magistrate/Executive Magistrate was authorized to 
take specimen writing and signatures of the said accused during 
the investigation of the case when no matter was pending 
before either of them - Held: s.311-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced 
by Act No. 25 of 2005 w.ej 23.06.2006 with respect to the powers 
of the Magistrate to order the person to give specimen signatures 
or handwriting; but no such powers were there prior to the year 
2006 - In the instant case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-
1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate to 
take specimen signatures of witnesses during the course of 
investigation cannot be disputed - Even otherwise, there is clear 
oral evidence of these witnesses denying their signatures in the 
loan application and other documents - High Court rightly 
reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty 
of the offences u/ss.468 and 471 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 73 -
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1980 - s.5 - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.468 and 471. 
254 
SUKH RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
Sentence/Sentencing: Reduction of sentence, plea for -
Conviction of appellant for misappropriation of funds - Appellants 
plea that he is more than 75 years of age and is suffering from 
severe ailments and prayed for reduction of sentence of 
imprisonment -
In the facts and circumstances of the case and that 
the innocence of the villagers has been misused to siphon the 
public money, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is not 
reduced. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. has been introduced 
by Act No. 25 of 2005 with effect from 23.06.2006 with respect 
to the powers of the Magistrate to order the person to give 
specimen signatures or handwriting; but no such powers were 
there prior to the year 2006. Section 311-A Cr.P.C. has been 
inserted on the suggestions of the Supreme Court in *State of 
Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Banu Misra that a suitable legislation 
be brought along the lines of Section 5 of Identification of 
Prisoners Act, 1980, to provide for the investiture of Magistrates 
with powers to issue directions to any person including an 
accused person to give specimen signatures and handwriting 
but no such powers existed prior to such amendment. The said 
amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective. [Para 
17) [261-H; 262-A-B] 
2. In the present case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-
1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate 
to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course 
of investigation cannot be disputed. In any event, even 
dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear 
oral· evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in 
the loan application and other documents. Affirming the 
evidence of PWs 5 and 7 and analysis of evidence, the High 
Court has rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal and found 
the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 
IPC. The appellant pleaded that he is more than 75 years of age 
and is suffering from severe ailments and prayed for reduction of 
sentence of imprisonment. 
In the facts and circumstances of 
the case and that the innocence of the villagers has been misused 
to siphon the public money, the sentence of imprisonment of the 
255 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant is not reduced. [Paras 22 and 23) [263-H; 264-A-C] 
*State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra (1980) 2 
sec 343: Am 1980
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.