Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 349
Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, etc
If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Sanhita, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or finger impressions or handwriting or voice sample, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or finger impressions or handwriting or voice sample:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding: 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.
Why this exists
Comparing handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, or voice samples against evidence like a forged document, an anonymous threatening letter, or a recorded phone call is often crucial to proving or disproving guilt. This provision creates a clear legal basis for a magistrate to compel such samples, balancing investigative needs against the individual's right not to be forced into self-incrimination in ways the law does not permit.
How courts read it
Courts have grappled with whether compelling voice samples amounts to 'testimonial compulsion' barred by the constitutional protection against self-incrimination; the Supreme Court has held that taking a voice sample is more like collecting physical evidence (similar to fingerprints) than compelling a person to give incriminating testimony, and that a magistrate can order it even without a specific enabling provision, a position this section now codifies more explicitly by including voice samples alongside signatures and handwriting.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Being forced to give a voice or handwriting sample violates the right against self-incrimination.
Fact: Courts have held that such samples are treated like physical evidence, similar to fingerprints, not as compelled testimonial statements, so ordering them does not violate that constitutional protection.