Bapna, J.—This case has been referred to the Division Bench by learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. One Badrilal is being prosecuted for offences under secs. 409 and 420, I.P.C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bundi. On 27th December, 1956 the Public Prosecutor requested for directing the accused to give his specimen handwriting An objection was raised on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate after referring to the Supreme Court decision in M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1) relied on the case of Sailendranath Sinha vs. The State (2), that the obtaining of specimen handwriting under sec. 73 of the Evidence Act did not amount to violation of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. The accused filed a revision, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi has recommended that the order of the Magistrate be set aside as it amounted to violation of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. The case came for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court who has referred this case to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in this case. 3. It is settled by the decision in M. P. Sharmas case (1) that the gua-rantee in Art. 20(3) of the Consitution is against testimonial compulsion and the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase to be a witness, is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It was observed in paragraph 10 that "to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes". In the case of Sailendranath Sinha vs. The State (2), M. P. Sharmas case(2) was referred to but it was held that that decision was not authority for the proposition that the direction to take specimen writings of a person who is accused of an offence amounts to a direction compelling him to give evidence against him. It was observed that a mere direction to a person accused of an offence, to give his specimen writing did not amount to compelling him to give evidence against himself. It was observed that a mere direction to a person accused of an offence, to give his specimen writing did not amount to compelling him to give evidence against himself. In the case of Brij Bhushan Raghunandan Prasad vs. The State (3) the effect of M. P. Sharmas case (1) has been taken to be that the giving of the thumb impression, specimen writing and signature or the positive acts of the accused and when he is directed to give his thumb impression, specimen writing and signature he is being compelled to do something which is likely to be used as evidence to support the prosecution case against him, and that such a direction is repugnant to Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. In our opinion different considerations arise in respect of obtaining a thumb impression as against obtaining specimen handwriting or signature. 4. In obtaining specimen handwriting or signature, the co-operation of the accused is necessary. But it is not always for the purpose of finding evidence against the accused that such specimen writing and signature may be used. One can well conceive of cases where such specimen handwriting or signature may support the innocence of the accused. A mere direction to the accused to give specimen handwriting or signature, does not by itself contravene the provisions of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. It may well be that the accused agrees to give such specimen handwriting and signature. What Art, 20(3) of the Constitution prohibits is the use of compulsion in order to obtain evidence against the accused by the act of the accused himself. In the present case the accused has objected and, therefore, while the direction to the accused to give specimen handwriting and signature, does not contravene the provisions of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution, no action will be taken to compel him to furnish such specimen handwriting or signature. 5. It is conceivable than in a certain case the police may obtain such specimen handwriting or signature after compelling the accused to do so. It is open to an accused person in such cases to plead that the provisions of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution had been violated at the time evidence is led by the prosecution to prove that certain writings and signatures are identical with the specimen writing and signatures obtained by the prosecution. 6. In respect of Thumb Impressions different considerations arise. 6. In respect of Thumb Impressions different considerations arise. They can be so obtained without the co-operation of the accused and the case in respect thereof stands on the same footing as the recovery of a document or article from the possession of the accused under a search warrant. What Art. 20 Sub-clause (3) provides is that compulsion shall not be used against the accused to be a witness against himself. It does not prohibit the securing of evidence by agencies other than the accused himself and by methods in which the co-operation of the accused is not necessary. 7. In the present case while the direction of the court to the accused to give his specimen handwriting and signature is not by itself open to objection, no compulsion can be used for obtaining such specimen writing or signature. 8. The reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi is answered as aforesaid.