Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court has held that the police do not require to get a request from a Magistrate for getting a specimen of fingerprints of the accused under Identification for Prisoners Act. It was additionally held that non-confining of any standards under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act by the state government does not prohibit the exercise of these powers.
Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ashok Bhushan comprised a bench that considered an important issue with respect to the Identification of Prisoners Act, when an appeal was brought forth by a murder convict. They not only delivered the judgement but also additionally clarified the import of the statutory provisions in such manner other than talking about different case laws regarding the subject matter.
The relevant provisions in this regard are Section 5 and Section 6.
Section 5 stipulates the taking of measurements of non-convicted persons and Section 6 deals with the power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed.
BACKGROUND
The question regarding the scope and interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act arose in a murder case in which the appellants were convicted by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal against conviction discarded the evidence of palm impression of the appellant.
The High Court had relied and depended on its Full Bench judgment in Sapan Haldar and Another vs. State which as indicated by the High Court had held that exclusively when by method for guidelines or official and executive direction the manner is recommended to take the measurements, at that point alone an IO under Section 4 of the Act can acquire the measurements.
Further, the High Court likewise contemplated that it was prominently alluring according to the Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Aman and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 10 SCC 44] to take after the methodology appointed under Section 5 of the Act.
JUDGEMENT
The Court at the start made it unmistakable that the judgment in Sapan Halder's case won't have any significant bearing to the present case since the Sapan Halder's case the admissibility of sample handwriting or signatures obtained from a person who was accused of having committed an offence.
Regardless of the same, the Court continued to inspect the law in Sapan Halder. Sapan Halder had set dependence on Mohd. Aman's case to hold that under Section 4, a Police officer is commissioned to take fingerprints only under the order of a Magistrate.
The Court adverted to Mohd. Aman wherein it was held that under Section 4, a Police officer is equipped to take fingerprints of the accused, yet to dissipate any doubt as to its bona fides or to dispose of the fabrication of evidence it was prominently alluring that they were taken previously or under the request of magistrate.
The Court then proceeded to address the second reasoning adopted by the High Court – there being no rules or executive instructions under Section 8 prescribing a manner of taking of fingerprints, Police Officer cannot exercise the power under Section 4.
Taking of the measurements in the prescribed manner is a procedural part of the Section which does not affect the substantive power of the Police Officer to ask an accused who is under arrest to give his measurement, the Court ruled.
The bench said: “Non-framing of any rules under Section 8 by the State Government does not prohibit the exercise of powers given under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Exercise of power under Sections 3 and 4 is hedged by conditions as prescribed but in a case where no rules have been framed, the authorities as empowered under Sections 3 and 4 are not denuded of their powers to act under Sections 3 and 4. In a case, the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of rules framed under Section 8, no power can be exercised under Sections 3 and 4 is accepted, the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 shall become dead letter, which has never been the intention of the legislature in enacting the 1920 Act.”
The Court also made it clear that Section 5 is a separate power given to Magistrate :
“The power of the Magistrate is an additional and separate power to secure ends of justice for purpose of investigation and proceedings under Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be exercised even in a case where after arrest Police Officer has not taken fingerprints of an accused. But, it cannot be held that power under Section 4 can be exercised by the Police Officer only after obtaining an order under Section 5.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824