( 1 ) ORDER :- the Inspector of Police, khammam Town Police Station who is investigating into the offence under section 3 (1) (x) r/w Section 3 (2) (vii) of SCs. and S. Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988 registered in Crime No. 56/97 of Khammam II town Police Station against Doctor N. Sesham naidu (petitioner herein) moved the Special court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, khammam to issue summons to the said dr. Sesham Naidu, District Medical and health Officer, Khammam to appear before the Court to give his specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison with the alleged suicide note (letter) addressed by him to the collector. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 15-9-1997 directed that summons to be issued to the accused Dr. Sesham Naidu to appear before his Court on 6-10-97 at 10. 30 a. m. in conection with Crime No. 56/97 to take his specimen handwriting to send the same to Government expert for opinion on comparison with the said suicide note. On receipt of the said summons, the accused filed a memo before the said Court stating that he cannot be compelled to subscribe his handwriting for comparison with the suicide letter addressed to the District Collector and that he intends to prefer revision against the order of that Court. The learned Additional sessions Judge granted time to the petitioner till 10-12-1997 for preferring a revision. Accordingly, the accused has preferred this revision against the said order of the learned special Court.

( 2 ) SRI E. Yella Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused, contended that Section 73 of the Evidence Act confers powers on the Magistrate to direct the accused to give his specimen writing in a matter pending before him and the Magistrate is not vested with any power under that Section to direct an accused to give his specimen handwriting when the case is still under investigation and that in the instant case, the case against the petitioner is still under investigation and that the Special judge has no power to direct the petitioner- accused to give his handwriting for comparison, with the alleged suicide note (letter) addressed by him to the District Collector. The learned Counsel Sri E. Yella Reddy also relied on the decision in state of Uttar Pradesh v. Rambabu Mishra", AIR 1980 SC 791, in support of his contention. The learned additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently contends that Section 73 of evidence Act enables the Magistrate even to give such a direction even when the case is under investigation and that it would be in the interest of administration of justice for the magistrate to direct the accused to give his specimen writing when the case is still under investigation since that would enable the investigating agency not to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial or enquiry, if the disputed writing, as a result of comparison of the same with the specimen writing, is not to have been made by the accused.

( 3 ) SECTION 73 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved : 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. "

( 4 ) THE second part of Section 73 enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare

Click Here to Read the rest of this document