JUDGMENT This is an accused person's revision from the order dated 5.12.1989 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in S.T. No. 50/87 rejecting the applicant's prayer for summoning a contractor, named, Udhavdas D. Sundarani, Sindhi Colony. Beena, along with certain muster-rolls, work order and some other papers. Besides, the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer for summoning an (unnamed) hand writing expert. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Government Advocate. The applicants learned counsel, Shri B.R. Sharma, has stated that he does not have a copy of any application that may have been made by the applicant in the trial Court. A list of defence witnesses (Annexure P/1) is all that the applicant has offered for consideration here. The trial Judge had rejected the prayer for summoning a contractor named Udhavdas, on the ground that no papers had been filed by the accused person relating to the work done by the contractor in question. It appears that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the first sentence at paragraph and the statement" at paragraph 16, (of the report of Ramwati) in which it has been suggested that the applicant and the prosecutrix Ramwati were working as abourers on being engaged hy the contractor. The prayer was, therefore, wrongly rejected. So far as the hand writing expert was concerned, the list of defence witnesses runs as follows: ^^¼4½ gSaMjkbfVax ,DliVZ }kjk eqn¸;k jkeorh ls U;k;ky; esa fy, tkus okys vxwBk fu’kkuh ,oa Bsdsnkj m/konkl }kjk izLrqr fd, tkus okys ekLVj jksy ds vxqBk fu’kkuh dh tkp¡ ckcr ,d fQaxaj fizaV ckcrA It is, therefore, clear that at the time the prayer was made, there was no justification for summoning any hand writing expert because it was not known whether there was any paper on which prosecutrix Ramwati's thumb impression was there. In the result, the rejection of the prayer for summoning contractor Udhavdas D. Sundarani, is set aside. On an application from the applicant, the trial Judge shall summon Thekedar Udhavdas D. Sundarani. The other part of the order rejecting the prayer for summoning the hand writing expert the prayer being premature is affirmed. The revision, therefore, succeeds in part and fails in part.