K. L. BAPNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS case has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) ONE Badrilal is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 409 and 420 I. P. C. in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bundi. On 27th December, 1956 the Public Prosecutor requested for directing the accused to give his specimen handwriting. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate after referring to the Supreme Court decision in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 relied on the case of Sailendra Nath Sinha v. the State, AIR 1955 Cal 247, that the obtaining of a specimen handwriting under Section 73 of the Evidence Act did not amount to violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The accused filed a revision, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi has recommended that the order of the Magistrate be set aside as it amounted to violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The case came for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court who has referred this case to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in this case.

( 3 ) IT is settled by the deci