The court's power to direct the accused to give specimen signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act is limited to proceedings before the court and cannot be exercised during the investigation stage.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Gulzar Singh (petitioner herein) was working as Secretary in Chhachhrauli Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Chhachhrauli (in short the society). Audit was carried on the accounts of this society. As a result of that audit, he was found to have embazzled a sum of Rs. 1,62,513.10 during the period 1.7.84 to 30.6.85 by tampering with the record of the society, Shri Ravinder Nath. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yamuna Nagar made complaint Ex.PW 2/A to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala with a view to registering case against him. It was also found that he had embezzled a sum totaling Rs. 3,89,767.10 during the period 1.2.83 to 15.5.85. This embazzlement came to light during the audit of the accounts of the society. Case FIR No. 51 dated 2.5.1986 was registered under Section 409 Indian Penal Code. Shri Shambhu Nath, Inspector Vigilance investigated the case. During investigation, he found that he committed embezzlement by effecting tampering in the record of the society with regard to the embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1,62,513.10 accused was challaned (in Criminal case No. 304/1-91 of 1987). With regard to the embezzlement of Rs. 2,27,254.00 he was challaned in criminal case No. 303/1-93 of 1987.

2. Accused was tried separately in both these challans though they are the offshoot of the same FIR No. 51 (ibid) of PS Chhachhrauli and could he tried at one trial. As the transactions covering embezzlement extended over a period of more than one year and so that there was no jumbling of facts and inconvenience of trial to the accused, he was tried separately.

3. In Criminal Case No. 303/1-93 of 1987 accused was charged under Section 409 Indian Penal Code for having embezzled Rs. 2.27,254.00 entrusted to him in his capacity as Secretary of the society. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted under Section 408 Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to undergo further RI for 9 months by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 26.4.1996. Accused went in appeal to the Court of Session. Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.11.1998. Gulzar Singh has come up in Crl. Revision No. 1390 of 1998 to this Court against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari dismissing his appeal thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded against him by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 25.4.1996.

4. In Criminal Case No. 304/1-93 of 1987 also, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 9 months by the learned Magistrate. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari. He has come up in Crl. Revision No. 1411 of 1998 whereby he is assailing the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari. Since the same question of law and fact is involved in both these revisions, I propose to dispose of both these revisions through this common order which shall govern both these revisions.

5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence that any amount was entrusted to the accused petitioner and if there is no evidence about the entrustment of any amount to the accused, no question of embezzlement would arise. It was submitted that none came forward to say that he gave such and such amount to the accused. It was submitted that entrustment is gravamen of the charge of embezzlement and without the proof of entrustment, embezzlement cannot arise. It was submitted that the charge of embezzlement was sought to be proved only by examining the auditor who audited the accounts of the society.

6. Suffice it to say, the a