ORDER K. Sreedharan, J. 1. First petitioner is accused of having committed offences punishable u/s.417 and 420 IPC. Learned Magistrate granted him bail. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sureties on whose bond first petitioner has been released. 2. Learned Magistrate is proceeding with the complaint as contemplated by S.244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While evidence was being recorded in support of the prosecution, a petition was filed for directing first petitioner to give his handwriting to be compared with the handwriting in Exts. P2 to P5 letters, alleged to have been written by him. To that petition first petitioner, filed objection. According to him, the complainant had got ample time to prove the genuineness of the handwriting in Exts. P2 to P5, that the application put in by the complainant at this late hour has to be rejected, that the petition is only to harass him, that it is one for protracting the proceedings and that it the court finds that there is evidence on record to frame charge, then after actually framing the charge there can be an order for taking handwriting of the accused for comparing with Exts. P2 to P5 by an expert. After hearing both, sides, learned Magistrate allowed the complainant's prayer in the following terms: Heard. In this case the accused has denied the handwriting in Exts. P2 to P5 alleged to have been written by the accused Complainants' case is that they were written by the accused Now accused is not available. Hence for the interest of the justice the handwriting has to be proved in Ext. P2 to P5 letters. Hence the prayer to send Ext. P2 to P5 to expert along with the handwriting of accused is allowed. Inspite of this order first petitioner, accused, did not appear before, court. So, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and issued notice to the sureties. He also issued non bailable warrant to the accused. Hence this petition prying for quashing the private complaint filed against first petitioner and also to quash the proceedings initiated for forfeiting the bail bonds. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners pressed for quashing the complaint, in exercise of the powers under S.482 or the Code. The complaint, in Annexure I produced in this case, it is argued, does not bring out any offence, much less, offences u/s.417 or 420 IPC. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners pressed for quashing the complaint, in exercise of the powers under S.482 or the Code. The complaint, in Annexure I produced in this case, it is argued, does not bring out any offence, much less, offences u/s.417 or 420 IPC. Since no offence is made out in the complaint the entire proceedings before court below have to be quashed. 4. On going through Annexure I complaint it cannot but be held that the ingredients of offences u/s.417 and 420 IPC are clearly brought out against first petitioner. He made false representation and induced the complainant to part with money. On account of the inducement, the complainant did part with money and first petitioner was illegally enriched by it. Thus, it is seen that the complaint brings out the offences alleged. When the ingredients of offences u/s.417 and 420 IPC are clearly made out this court will not be justified in quashing the complaint in exercise of the powers u/s482 of the Code. Accordingly, first prayer to quash the proceedings before court below is declined. 5. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the court has no authority to compel first petitioner to give his handwriting for purpose of comparison with those seen in Exts. P2 to P5 letters. Learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate went wrong and acted without jurisdiction by directing first petitioner to give his handwriting. The learned Magistrate should not have asked for his presence in court for taking the handwriting. If the Ist petitioner failed to comply with the direction the court can draw adverse presumption against him as provided by S.114 of the Evidence Act and nothing else. So the proceedings initiated for forfeiting the bond are unsustainable. 6. The question whether a person can be compelled to give his handwriting in view of the provisions of Art.20(3) of the Constitution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu ( AIR 1961 SC 1808 ). Eight Judges constituting the majority held that the giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness' as contemplated by Art.20(3) of the Constitution. Eight Judges constituting the majority held that the giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness' as contemplated by Art.20(3) of the Constitution. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the minority, three Judges, observed: "We agree therefore with the conclusion reached by the majority of the Bench that there is no infringement of Art.20(3) of the Constitution by Compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature; or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act; xx xx xx xx" From this, it is evident that the court has got power to compel an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature. 7. Art.20(3) of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. A direction to give specimen handwriting or signature for comparison will not amount testimonial compulsion. By giving specimen handwriting he is not giving evidence against himself. It becomes evidence against him only when on comparison with it and on formation of opinion, it is found that the, disputed writing or impression is that of himself. A direction under S.73 of the Evidence Act does not result in compelling him to be a witness against himself. Direction to write down a sample writing is only for the purpose of ultimately enabling the court to compare the writing and to form an opinion of its own. Such comparison and formation of opinion can be had not only by comparison by, court without the assistance from anyone else, but also in the manner provided by S.45 and 47 as well. 8. Relying on the decision in State v. Pali Ram ( AIR 1979 SC 14 ) learned counsel representing the petitioners canvassed for the proposition that the court has no power to compel an accused to write down sample writing. The court can only direct an accused to give his handwriting. It is submitted that the court should not have directed the petitioner to be present in court. The court could have directed the counsel representing the petitioner to make available to court specimen writing. The court can only direct an accused to give his handwriting. It is submitted that the court should not have directed the petitioner to be present in court. The court could have directed the counsel representing the petitioner to make available to court specimen writing. The bail should not have been cancelled. Proceedings for forfeiture of the bond ought not have been initiated either. If the direction is not complied with, the court can draw adverse inference as provided by S.114 of the Evidence Act. In other words, according to counsel, for Retting the handwriting of an accused, no court can compel his presence before court. On going through the said decision, I find it difficult to agree with this argument advanced by the learned counsel. In that case the Magistrate ordered the accused present in court to give specimen handwriting to have it examined by handwriting expert. In Revision the High Court held that the said direction was beyond the scope of S.73 of the Evidence Act. Disagreeing with the view expressed by the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the order of the Magistrate stating: "S.73 is therefore to be read as a whole, in the light of S.45. Thus read, it is clear that a Court holding an inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence triable by itself or by the Court of Session, does not exceed its powers under S.73, if, in the interests of justice, it directs an accused person appearing before it, to give his sample writing to enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or approved by the Court, irrespective of whether his name was suggested by the prosecution or the defence, because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Court before which he is ultimately put up for trial, to compare the disputed writing with his (accused's) admitted writing, and to reach its own conclusion with the assistance of the expert." Their Lordships directed the Magistrate to direct the accused to write down sample writing. If he refuses to comply with the direction, Their Lordships observed that the Magistrate is at liberty to draw adverse presumption u/s.114 of the Evidence Act. If he refuses to comply with the direction, Their Lordships observed that the Magistrate is at liberty to draw adverse presumption u/s.114 of the Evidence Act. This decision, according to me lays down the proposition that the Magistrate can direct the accused present in court to write down sample writing, The court must get the person in court. In case, after coming to court he does not comply with the direction, the court will be justified in drawing adverse inference. The above decision has not gone to lay down the proposition that the trial court cannot compel an accused to be present in court but can only direct him to give the specimen writing through his counsel. Even if it is to be taken as having stated that an accused cannot be compelled to write down the specimen writing it must be understood in the sense that no physical objective act or extraneous process as to render the writing involuntary can be resorted to. It does not mean that the court cannot even compel an accused to be present in court for giving the direction to give the sample writing. If an accused who is present in court, is not complying with that direction, no further penalty can be imposed on him except that this court can draw adverse inference as contemplated by S.114 of the Evidence Act. 9. In the instant case first petitioner is on bail. He has not appeared before court for giving his specimen handwriting. As stated earlier, S.73 of the Evidence Act contemplates a direction, to a person present in court. In order to give such a direction, the presence of the accused in court is highly necessary. To enable him to be present in court the case was adjourned. On the adjourned date, he did not appear before court. So, the only course that was open to the learned Magistrate was to cancel his bail bond and to register M. C. against him and sureties. The court acted well within its jurisdiction in acting in that manner. I do not find any illegality in that procedure. The order passed by the learned Magistrate has not in any way gone to defeat the provisions of law or to result in abuse of process of court. 10. The court acted well within its jurisdiction in acting in that manner. I do not find any illegality in that procedure. The order passed by the learned Magistrate has not in any way gone to defeat the provisions of law or to result in abuse of process of court. 10. In view of what has been stated above, I find no ground to grant any of the prayers made by the petitioners. The Criminal M. C. fails. It is accordingly dismissed.