1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 296/2008 (Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 28.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Bala Ram Kumawat for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Rathi, P.P. BY THE COURT:- Issue notice for final disposa. Mr. O.P. Rathi, publi prosecutor accepts the notice for the respondent State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself has been finally heard and decided. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner complainant has challenged the order dated 9.1.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (East) Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby an application filed by the State through Sub-Inspector Bhanwar Lal, S.H.O. Police Station-Kotwali, Bhilwara for handing over the copy of original plaint filed in civil 2 suit being Civil Original Suit No.137/90 jointly filed by Bhanwarlal and his brother Gulabsingh bearing signature of Bhanwarlal and Gulabsingh so that the admitted signature of Bhanwarlal can be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to be examined by the handwriting expert with the signature alleged to have been forged on power of attorney executed by his brother Gulabsingh, was dismissed. It appears that the petitioner lodged a report with Police Station-Kotwali, Bhilwara being FIR No.277/07 for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC alleging therein that Gulabsingh who is real brother of deceased Bhanwarlal and the uncle of the present petitioner has forged a power of attorney after the death of Bhanwarlal. There being no other admitted signature of Bhanwarlal as Bhanwarlal has already expired and therefore, the investigating officer filed an application stating that the admitted signature of Bhanwarlal on the plaint filed in the Civil Original Suit No. 137/90 which came to be dismissed on 8.10.1996, may be made available to the investigating officer so that same can be got compared and examined by the handwriting expert with the admitted signature as also the alleged forged signature. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that there is no allegation of forging signature on the plaint. 3 It appears that the trial court has not gone into the controversy raised in the FIR which is under investigation. It was not the case of the petitioner that any signature had been forged on the plaint or in that civil suit. What the petitioner and the State came with a case that Bhanwarlal has expired and there being no admitted signature of Bhanwarlal available except the signature on the plaint which was jointly filed by Bhanwarlal and Gulabsingh, who is accused in the instant FIR and therefore, in absence of admitted signature, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the signature on the power of attorney is forged or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Borilal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 549 wherein this Court while considering the provisions of Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986 ordered to hand over the original copy of agreement which has been submitted in the civil suit, to the police directing the civil court to keep a certified copy of the said document in the file of civil suit. The controversy involved in the instant petition stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Borilal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). Rule 181 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986 reads as under :- 4 “181. Prohibition against issue of records.- Ordinarily no record shall be issued except on the requisition of a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, of a Tribunal, of the Government, of the Board of Revenue, of Commissioner of Excise and of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, and then only on an order of the Presiding Officer. In all other cases, before a record is issued the orders of the High Court shall be taken on the object.” Keeping in view the fact that as to whether the signature on the alleged forged power of attorney bears the signature of its executant Bhanwarlal or has been forged can only be ascertained by examining the same with the admitted signature of the alleged executant Bhanwarlal by the handwriting expert and there being no admitted signature of Bhanwarlal except that of signature on the plaint filed in the civil suit No.137/90 jointly filed by Bhanwrlal and Gulabsingh and Bhanwarlal is not alive, now there can be no possibility of having any other admitted signature of Bhanwarlal for comparison, in my view, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the order impugned 5 dated 09.1.2008 passed by the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to handover the original plaint in Civil Original Suit No. 137/90 decided on 8.10.1996 to the SHO police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara by keeping a certified copy of the same on the record of the Court file, so that the investigating officer can send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion of the handwriting expert and comparison with that of signature on the power of attorney alleged to have been forged. Furthermore, the police is directed to produce it before the Civil Court or Criminal Court as and when called for. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp