emphasis supplied Feeling aggrieved by this Order, Pali Ram preferred a revision to the Court of Session.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 18 2 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
The revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on December 7, 1972.
It was further stated that this document is a very vital link to establish the case against the accused and in the interest of justice, the Court should direct Pali Ram accused to give his specimen writings, and forward the same along with the original documents marked P. 21/F to the Government Expert of Questioned Documents with a view to have the necessary companyparison.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
46 of 1973.
Against this dismissal, Pali Ram preferred a revision petition C.R. No.
S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey for the Appellants.
B. Vohra for the Respondent.
Revision No.
21/F tendered in evidence was, according to the prosecution, in the handwriting of Pali Ram but it companyld number be got companypared by a handwriting expert with any specimen writing of Pali Ram because the latter was absconding and had avoided to give any specimen writing.
336 of 1976.
It was stated in the application that one of the basic documents Ex.
It arises out of these circumstances Pali Ram, respondent along with Har Narain and 8 others was challenged by the police in respect of offences under Section 120B 420/477A/467/471, Penal Code, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave, directed against a judgment dated February 18, 1975, of the High Court of Delhi, involves a question with regard to the scope of the powers of Court under Section 73, Evidence Act to direct an accused person to give his specimen writings.
