Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2187 (PNJ)

Hardeep Kaur v. Gurmail Kaur

2006-05-17

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2006
Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) have been passed before the petitioner was summoned in the complaint case. The case of the complainant was at the stage of recording of preliminary evidence, when the learned trial Court and the learned Revisional Court thought it fit to summon the petitioner to have his signatures compared with some documents. This could not have done so, as per Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Act")where it has been clearly stated that Court can direct any person present in court to give his specimen signatures. Since the petitioner was not present in Court, as he had not been summoned as an accused, he thus could not have been asked to give his specimen signatures. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the HON BLE Rajasthan High Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Maya Bansal Versus state of Rajasthan, 2003 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal 29 wherein the HON BLE Court has stated that "on request of the prosecution, Court can direct the accused to give his specimen signatures". 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition with their assistance. 4. There is no ambiguity as to whether the accused can be asked to give his specimen signatures for comparison as per Sec.73 of the Act. 5. In the case in hand, a complaint was filed by the respondent and the trial court at the recording of evidence at the preliminary stage before the petitioner had been summoned, passed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to give his specimen signatures for comparison. In Sec.73 of the Act, it has been clearly mentioned that "court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures only where the Court itself is of the view that it is necessary for its own purposes to take such writing in order to compare the words or figures or written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. " The bare meaning of Section 73 of the Act is that Court can only direct any person who is present in court to give his specimen signatures. 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner had not been summoned. He was yet not an accused. " The bare meaning of Section 73 of the Act is that Court can only direct any person who is present in court to give his specimen signatures. 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner had not been summoned. He was yet not an accused. . The trial court could not have asked the petitioner at this stage to give his specimen signatures. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is an authority, where the accused was directed to give his specimen signatures after he was summoned and was present before the Court as an accused. 7. Order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Amloh (Annexure P1) and order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the revisional Court (Annexure P2) are set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed with the complaint case and to pass any order thereafter as per law. With the above direction, petition is disposed of as such.