The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Section 311A of the CrPC, clarifying that arrest is not mandatory for obtaining specimen signatures during investigations. It stated that the proviso is directory, not mandatory, allowing individuals to voluntarily provide samples without being arrested. This interpretation aligns with similar provisions in the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), ensuring investigative efficiency without infringing on fundamental rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows magistrates to order individuals to provide their specimen signatures to help in investigations, is constitutionally valid.
The proviso to this Section specifies that such orders cannot be made unless the person is arrested. However, the Court clarified that this provision is more of a guideline rather than a strict rule.
A Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma explained that the proviso to Section 311A is directory, not mandatory. They emphasized that interpreting the word “shall” as mandatory could create unnecessary complications. The Bench stated:
“The word ‘shall’ used in the aforesaid proviso, if is in interpreted to be a mandatory provision, then the consequences…is that the concerned accused person has to be mandatorily arrested before he can give his specimen signatures or handwriting in aid of the investigation. It is well settled principle of law that arrest of an accused, even in a case involving non-bailable offences, is not mandatory. The need to arrest an accused person in such cases is left to the discretion of the concerned Investigating Officer or his superiors.”
The Court further clarified that if a person willingly appears before the Magistrate or Court after an application from the Investigating Officer, arrest is not required. They concluded:
“When a person voluntarily appears before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the application filed by the Investigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or handwriting, it is not essential to arrest him.”
The Court also highlighted that this interpretation aligns with the updated legal framework in the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The corresponding Section 349 in BNSS explicitly mentions that arrest is not mandatory for obtaining specimen signatures.
It states:
“Provided further that the Magistrate may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, order any person to give such specimen or sample without him being arrested.”
The issue was brought before the High Court when a magistrate sought clarity on certain legal questions:
- Whether a person appearing in court to provide specimen signatures under Section 311A of the CrPC must be arrested at that moment or detained before providing the samples.
- Whether Section 311A places excessive restrictions on the fundamental rights of individuals required to give specimen signatures.
Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, acting as Amicus Curiae, assisted the Court alongside Advocates Rupendra Pratap Singh, Sakshi Mendiratta, and Sameer Vats.
The State’s case was represented by Assistant Standing Counsel (Criminal) Nandita Rao, supported by Advocates Amit Peswani, Anurag Ahluwalia, and Tarveen Singh Nanda.
CASE TITLE:
Court On Its Own Motion v. State.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arrest
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
