Section 349 BNSS: Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, etc (Formerly Section 311A CrPC)

Section 349 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, etc

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 349

Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 311A of the CrPC, 1973) empowers a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to order any person, including an accused, to give specimen signatures, handwriting, finger impressions, or voice samples.

Magistrate's Authority: Judicial Magistrate of the first class may direct any person, including an accused, to give specimen signatures, handwriting, finger impressions, or voice samples for the purpose of investigation.
Arrest Requirement Prerequisite: No order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with the investigation.
Constitutional Immunity Safeguard: Does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination) as physical or voice samples do not constitute 'testimonial' compulsion.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263: The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between physical/bodily measurements and mental contents; taking handwriting or physical samples does not breach Article 20(3), whereas narco-analysis and lie detectors do.
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1: The Supreme Court authoritatively held that a Judicial Magistrate has the legal power to direct an accused to provide voice samples for criminal investigation without infringing Article 20(3).

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If the police seek handwriting or voice exemplars without having arrested the person or without demonstrating clear relevance to the intercepted recordings, challenge the application under Section 349 as premature and legally flawed.