Specimen handwriting orders under the Evidence Act can be used with expert assistance, while the court retains final comparison duty.

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act permits a Magistrate to direct an accused present before the court to give specimen handwriting for comparison with disputed writing. The provision was read as complementary across both paragraphs, so the power is not limited to cases where the court alone intends to compare writings without expert aid. A specimen obtained from the accused may be used as admitted writing and compared with the disputed document with expert assistance, while the court retains the final duty to assess the evidence. The Magistrate's direction was therefore within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, a Magistrate conducting an inquiry or trial may direct an accused present before the Court to give specimen handwriting so that it may be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed writing, even though the ultimate purpose is to enable the Court to reach its own conclusion.

Analysis: The provision was read as a whole, with the two paragraphs treated as complementary and not mutually exclusive. The Court held that the second paragraph does not confine the direction to cases where the Court itself alone proposes to compare the writings without any expert assistance. A sample writing obtained from an accused is, in substance, admitted writing and may be used for comparison by the Court with the aid of an expert, because the object of the direction remains the Court's own determination of the issue. The Court also noted that the prudent course in handwriting matters is ordinarily to obtain expert assistance, while the Court itself retains the duty to compare and assess the total evidence. The direction was therefore within the Magistrate's powers and did not offend the law.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was competent to require the accused to give specimen handwriting for comparison through a handwriting expert, and the contrary view was rejected in favour of the appellant.

---