HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1220 OF 2010 & 1221 OF 2010 DATE:13.07.2010 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1220 OF 2010 Between: Sriramoju Kumarswamy …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1221 OF 2010 Between: Sriramoju Kumarswamy …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1220 OF 2010 & 1221 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. The State represented by C.I.D, Warangal sought for specimen signatures and sample handwritings of the petitioner/ A-1 and another in Crime No.52 of 1997 relating to offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 IPC, in the lower court. The lower court i.e., the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal by two orders dated 21.06.2010 in Criminal M.P.Nos.888 of 2010 and 889 of 2010 while allowing the said petitions issued summonses to A-1 and another for obtaining their specimen signatures and sample handwritings in open court to compare the same with original bank account specimen signatures on forms. Questioning the said orders, A-1 alone filed these revision petitions. The police filed the above two petitions in the lower court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311-A Cr.P.C. 2. Crime No.52 of 1997 relate to scholarships scam in 5 Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) viz., Lillian, Laurel, Victory, Hazarath and Lesely I.T.Is. A-1 was arrested in Crime No.52 of 1997 during the course of investigation. After completing investigation in respect of the scam relating to Lillian ITI, C.I.D filed C.C.No.464 of 2002 in the lower court. Now C.I.D wants to complete investigation in respect of 4 other ITIs., viz., Laurel, Victory, Hazarath and Lesely and filed additional or further charge sheets in the same Crime No.52 of 1997. Therefore, the prosecution agency approached the lower court with the present petitions in order to find out complicity of A-1 and another in those scams. 3. Section 311-A Cr.P.C as well as Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provide for taking specimen signatures and sample handwritings of the accused persons in case he was arrested in connection with this case. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the investigation is barred by limitation as nearly 13 years elapsed from the date of registration of this case to this date. There is no time limit prescribed for investigation of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. Section 468 prescribes period of limitation in respect of taking cognizance of offences punishable upto three years only. Sections 420 and 409 IPC prescribe punishments which are more than three years. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per common cause case rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1619(1), the investigation cannot continue for these 13 years. Common cause case relate to pendency of criminal cases in courts and it is not relating to investigation of the case. Main thrust in common cause case is that speedy trial and long pendency of cases before courts relating to certain type of cases and not in respect of cases in which huge public funds are alleged to have been embezzled by the accused. 6. In the case on hand, the lower court having regard to all the circumstances of the case rightly exercised its powers under Section 311-A Cr.P.C and passed the impugned orders. I see no infirmity in the orders passed by the lower court. 7. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:13.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1220 OF 2010 & 1221 OF 2010 Date:13.07.2010 Gk.