- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajamuthukoil Pillai And Another v. Periyasami Nadar Alias Veda Manicka Nadar.
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a revision petition filed by the accused against an order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in C.C. No. 25 of 1954. The complainant had petitioned the Magistrate to (a) issue a process to the accused to produce a certain document and (b) direct the accused to give his thumb impression in court for comparison with other documents relied upon by the complainant. The Magistrate ordered production of the document (to which the accused had no objection) and, relying on Section 73 of the Evidence Act, directed the accused to give his thumb impression. The accused challenged only the direction to give his thumb impression in this revision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Magistrate could lawfully direct the accused to give his thumb impression in court for comparison with documents relied upon by the complainant.
- Whether compelling the accused to give his thumb impression in court constitutes requiring him to "furnish evidence" and thereby violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, in light of precedents cited.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in "Sharma v. Satischandra" and the decision "Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Labour Inspector, Karaikudi (S) AIR 1956 Mad 165 (B)" on this Court's file, arguing that to be a witness means to furnish evidence and that requiring the accused to affix his thumb impression in court would compel him to furnish evidence in violation of Article 20(3).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sharma v. Satischandra | Held that to be a witness means to furnish evidence; affixing thumb impression to furnish evidence is prohibited under Article 20(3). | The court relied on this principle to conclude that directing the accused to give his thumb impression would amount to compelling him to furnish evidence in violation of Article 20(3). |
| Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Labour Inspector, Karaikudi (S) AIR 1956 Mad 165 (B) | Used in support of the contention that Article 20(3) precludes compelling the accused to furnish certain forms of evidence. | The decision, being on this Court's file, was relied upon by the petitioner's counsel and considered supportive of the conclusion that the accused could not be compelled to give his thumb impression. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The lower Court directed the accused to give his thumb impression relying on Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The revising court considered the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in "Sharma v. Satischandra" (and this Court's decision "Swarnalingam Chettiar ...") which held that being a witness involves furnishing evidence; thus, requiring the accused to affix his thumb impression would be to compel him to furnish evidence. The Court noted that a Bench of this Court had followed the Supreme Court view and held that orders compelling production in similar contexts could not be passed. Applying these authorities, the Court concluded that directing the accused to give his thumb impression would amount to compelling him to furnish evidence prohibited by Article 20(3), and therefore the accused could not be so compelled.
Holding and Implications
The petition is allowed and the direction of the lower Court requiring the accused to give his thumb impression in court is set aside.
Direct effect: the accused is relieved of the obligation to give his thumb impression as ordered by the Magistrate. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this disposition; no new precedent is stated to have been created.
1.This is a revision by the accused against an order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, on a petition filed by the complainant in C. C, No. 25 of 1954, on. his file, asking the Court to issue a process to the accused to produce a certain document and also to direct him to give his thumb impression in court so that it may be compared with certain other documents on which the complainant relied.
So far as the issue of the process for the production of the document was concerned, the accused had no objection to it and it had been ordered. So far as the prayer for directing the accused to give his thumb impression was concerned, the accused objected to it, but the lower Court relied on Section 73 of the Evidence Act and directed him to give his thumb impression. It is this position of the lower Court's order that is being impugned by the accused in this petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in - 'Sharma v. Satischandra' , and another decision in - 'Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Labour Inspector, Karaikudi' (S) AIR 1956 Mad 165 (B), on the file of this Court in support of his contention. In the Supreme Court decision, in considering Article 20, Clause (3), their Lordships have held that to be a witness means to furnish evidence, and in this case what is sought by the complainants is that the accused, by affixing his thumb impression, should furnish evidence to the Court. This, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is prohibited under Article 20 (3).
A Bench of our Court following this decision of the Supreme Court had held that asking the accused to produce certain documents falls within the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court and that such an order cannot be passed. As pointed out already, it seems to me that this direction asking the accused to give his thumb impression would amount to asking him to furnish evidence which is prohibited under Article 20 (3). The accused, therefore, cannot be compelled to give his thumb impression as directed by the Magistrate.
3. The petition is allowed and the direction of the lower Court asking the accused to give his thumb impression in court is set aside.
Alert