JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Complainant is Petitioner in this revision. 2. Opposite party was appointed as Instructor in short-hand and type-writing in D.C.C. College, Tangi in the year 1980. As he did not produce any certificate in support of his qualification in short-hand and type-writing, his service was terminated in August, 1981. Within one month, opposite party produced a certificate purported to have been granted by a type-writing institute of Nayagarh. On basis of such certificate, opposite party prayed for recalling the order of termination Governing body of the college believing in the certificate, recalled the order. Complainant joined as Principal of the College In the year 1982. Some students made grievance that opposite. party is not able to teach them properly. When the matter was placed before the governing body, complainant was asked to make an enquiry on the basis of which he proceeded to Nayagarh and found that there is no institute of the name at that place which purported to have granted the certificate. Thereafter, he filed complaint against opposite party alleging that he used a forged document. On the basis of complaint, cognizance of offence u/s 468, I.P.C. was taken and opposite party was summoned to face trial. 3. In course of trial three witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are two students. P.W. 3 is the complainant. At that stage complainant filed anapplication to direct opposite party for taking down dictation in short-hand in Court. Trial Court having rejected such application by the impugned order, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Court has power to direct the accused to give his specimen signature as provided u/s 73 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, trial Court ought to have given the direction as prayed for which would come under the scope of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. He relied upon a decision reported in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram. Learned Counsel for opposite party, on the other hand; submitted that Section 73 of the Evidence Act has no application to the facts of this case and opposite party is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Rival contentions of both the parties require careful consideration. 5. Article 20(3) reads as follows: (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Rival contentions of both the parties require careful consideration. 5. Article 20(3) reads as follows: (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This provision makes it clear that a person could not be compelled to supply materials to a Court which would amount to self-incrimination. In The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, this aspect was not taken into consideration. Only question for consideration was whether signature can betaken u/s 73 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of comparison where in course of evidence Magistrate is of opinion that he requires assistance of an expert. Accordingly, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is of no assistance to the Petitioner. Besides, taking signature for the purpose of being examined by expert and directing the accused to take down dictation in short-hand and type-writing in Court do not stand on the same footing. No expert would be examined for comparing the short-hand script of the accused with any such admitted script. In this case also there is no admitted script of opposite party to be compared with the script to be made in Court. 6. Learned Magistrate is justified in utilising Article 20(3) of the Constitution to give protection to the accused. In Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and Another, it was held that accused has a right of silence and accordingly, he, is not bound to answer any question put to him by a police officer which has got the tendency of incriminating himself. That would amount to an accused being a witness against himself. In view of this dictum when the accused has got constitutional right of silence he cannot be compelled to scribe in short-hand the dictation in Court since the very purpose of such dictation is to bring home the guilt to accused as has been stated in the petition itself. 7. In this Court also question of availability of protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution to an accused was considered in the decision reported in 60 (1985) C.L.T. 461 (Bimal Kanti Ghosh v. M. Chandrasekhar Rao) where accused was directed to produce some documents in his possession. A passage from the head note in Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and Another, was relied upon to hold that accused cannot be compelled to produce documents in his possession. 8. A passage from the head note in Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and Another, was relied upon to hold that accused cannot be compelled to produce documents in his possession. 8. I am satisfied that compelling an accused by giving a direction to take down dictation in short-hand in Court having tendency to bring home his guilt violates fundamental right of the accused in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. 9. In the result, there is no merit in this revision which is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed