1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the petitioner-accused is directed against an order dated 10th February, 2011 passed in Sessions Case No.114/2005 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) refusing thereby prayer of the petitioner-accused for getting the disputed handwritings of Ex.P-2, P-3 and P-4 compared by a Handwriting Expert with the words or figures alleged to have been made by such person.

2. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner-accused in the present case is facing prosecution for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel that on receiving information about the commission of alleged offence, the ASI O.P. Yadav rushed to the spot and reduced in writing the Dehati Nalishi and Marg, marked as EX. P-4 and EX.P-2. On the basis of the aforesaid, an FIR was written by Ramlakhan (PW2) at police station which is marked as Ex.P3. It is alleged that all these reports have been written by the same person and with a view to prove this fact the accused prayed for calling services of the Handwriting Expert to bring out the truth in the prosecution case, but unfortunately, his prayer was rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. Therefore, by filing the instant revision it is prayed that the same may be allowed in the interest of justice in order to establish defence and false implication by the accused after examination by the Handwriting Expert. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of State of Delhi v. Patiram [1979 AIR SC 14], State of Maharashtra v. Sukh Dev Singh [1992 AIR SC 2100], Ajeet Sawant v. State of Karnataka [(1997)7 SCC 110].

3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent State, opposed the prayer of the petitioner-accused and supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court. He, therefore, requested to dismiss the revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the copies of the charge-sheet papers containing the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court along with relevant provisions of law applicable to the case in hand.

5. In the case of Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 2294], the apex Court held:

"It was held that the plea appeared to be afterthought and there was no cogent reason for accepting the prayer. It is true that in a given case the accused can make an application for adducing additional evidence to substantiate his claim of innocence. Whenever any such application is filed before the Court, acceptability of the prayer in question is to be objectively considered. The High Court has elaborately dealt with this issue and concluded as to how the prayer was rightly held to be not tenable."

6. Further in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram [AIR 1979 SC 14], the apex Court observed:

"Section 73 is therefore to be read as a whole, in the light of section 45. Thus read, it is clear that a Court holding an inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence triable by itself or by the Court of Session, does not exceed its powers under section 73 if, in the interests of justice, it directs an accused person appearing before it, to give his sample writing to enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or approved by the Court, irrespective of whether his name was suggested by the prosecution or the defence, because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Court before which he is ultimately put up for trial, to compare the disputed writing with his (accused’s) admitted writing, and to reach its own conclusion with the assistance of the expert."

7. In the case of Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka [AIR 1997 1997 SC 3255=1997 AIR SCW 3315], the apex Court held:

"The section does not specify by whom the comparison sha