HARDEEP KAUR Vs. GURMAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(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 Section 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.