GANGADHAR NAYAK Vs. RAJ KISHORE BHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 468, I.P.C. was taken and opposite party was summoned to face trial.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Court has power to direct the accused to give his specimen signature as provided under Section 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 : : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 14 (State Delhi Administration v. Pal 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.