JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Learned counseI appearing for opposite party. No. 2 states that in S.T. No. 27/160 of 1993 sessions trial is still pending in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, awaiting apprehension of the accused at the stage of examination of the accused u/s 313. Cr. P.C.. 2. Heard further arguments. 3. Admitted fact position, as reveals from the arguments of both the parties, is that Petitioner is accused of the offence of kidnapping the victim girl i.e.. p. w. No. 1 and that by the date of occurrence she was claimed to be a minor i.e., under eighteen years of age. One of the defence pleas of the Petitioner is that there Was series of letters written by p. w. No. 1 to the Petitioner requesting him to take her away and that she voluntarily left with the Petitioner which fact can be proved from such letters. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that all such letters were seized by Police and that Petitioner has produced few xerox copies in the Court at the time of cross-examination of p. w. 1. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer has not filed those seized letters. Prosecution disputes about seizure of any such letters. Be that as it may at the time of cross-examination p. w. No. 1 denied to have written any such letters and also denied the writings in those xerox copies marked 'X' and 'Y' series for identification. Thus prayer was made by the Petitioner to collect specimen writings of p. w. No. 1 and to send the same to the hand-writing expert along with the above said documents marked 'X' and 'Y' series for comparison and report. It is stated in the impugned order dated 20-4-1996 that, p. w. No. 1 on being asked by the defence, refused to lend her specimen signature. The trial court rejected the above prayer of the Petitioner in the following quoted manner: In this case the accused persons are facing trial u/s 366/34, I.P.C. in respect to a minor girl. Since p. w. 1 does not admit that the letters are written by her and she does not want to give her specimen hand-writing to be sent to the hand-writing expert for comparison, she cannot be compelled for the same. Since p. w. 1 does not admit that the letters are written by her and she does not want to give her specimen hand-writing to be sent to the hand-writing expert for comparison, she cannot be compelled for the same. In the circumstance, both the petitions filed by the learned defence counsel are rejected. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the provision in Section 73 of the Evidence Act and the ratio in the cases of The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, and Sashi Bhusan Pati and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr. v. 01. 64 (1985) C.L. T. 591 order of the trial court is not-sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same be set aside and the trial court be directed to obtain the Specimen hand writing of the victim girl (p. w. 1) and prayer of the Petitioners for comparison of the hand-writing be allowed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. the informant, advance similar argument stating that keeping in view the facts and circumstances involved in this case exercise of power u/s 73. Evidence Act is not required because the hand-writing of p. w. 1 was sought to be compared with xerox copies of the letters whose genuineness or authenticity is not proved and that such comparison is not necessary in the interest of justice or for a just decision in the case. 6. To resolve the dispute, first of all, Section 73 of the Evidence Act is referred to. "73. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been, written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger-impressions". 7. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been, written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger-impressions". 7. Section 73, as it appears vests in the Court, power to direct any person present in Court to give handwriting, signature and/or thumb impression, as the case may be, for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the same with any admitted handwriting, signature or thumb impression. The mode of comparison may be by referring to the experts opinion as provided in Section 45 of the Evidence Act or in making comparison by the Court. Though Section 73 empowers and authorised the Court to take the task of comparing the disputed words or figures with the admitted words or figures, yet as per the view expressed by the Apex Court in several cases prudent course for the Court is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. (See The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, and Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka, ). 'Any person present in the court' means the parties to the proceeding and the witnesses in attendance. 8, The next question is when Section 73 of the Evidence Act should be resorted to. On a careful reading of Section 73 it is clear that the said provision pas not been made for the parties to secure evidence through Court. On the other hand, the pre-conditions before invoking power u/s 73 by a Criminal Court are (i) there must be a cause before the Court; (ii1 the person so directed must be a party to the cause or witness in the cause; (iii) he must be present in Court in respect of the said cause, and (iv) such comparison is necessary to determine the issue relating to the said case. The last requirement as noted above means Section 73 should be reported to by a Court when such direction and comparison i essential in the interest of justice i. e., to say for a Just and People adjudication. of the mattel., (See Sashi Bhusan Pati and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Another, ). 9. The last requirement as noted above means Section 73 should be reported to by a Court when such direction and comparison i essential in the interest of justice i. e., to say for a Just and People adjudication. of the mattel., (See Sashi Bhusan Pati and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Another, ). 9. In view of the above noted analysis and findings on the scope and applicability of Section 73, Evidence Act, opinion expressed by the panel court regarding the mobility to obtain hand-writing due to refusal by p.w. No. 1 is not correct, In that interest, if obtaining of signature is necessary in the interest of justice, p. w. No. 1, to the extent permissible under law, could have been insisted upon to give Her specimen hand-writing or signature or both. 10. Now reverting to the facts involved, as submitted by learned Counsel for both the parties, it is alleged that the Petitioner kidnapped a minor girl. It is one of the defence pleas of the accused-petitioner that the girl went out of her own because of love affairs and not by use of force as projected by the prosecution. On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of the prosecution that the girl was kidnapped when she was going to the school to appear in her examination. Be that as it may, fact remains that whether consent or no consent provision in Penal code makes no exception when a minor girl without the consent is taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian. In view of that asking the minor to give specimen signature for comparison with the letters written may not be required by the trial court for just decision. Apart from that in the present case, as stated by learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, Petitioner has produced some unauthentic xerox copies. Such xerox copies could not have been the basis to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner. Law provides for other ways to prove the above defence plea and the letters, if the Petitioner desires to avail the same. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the facts, circumstances and law, this Court does not feel any necessary of interfering with the impugned order. Hence the Criminal Misc. case is dismissed. Criminal misc. case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed