N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
2. This petitioner under Section 482 Cr. PC is directed against an order dated 2(sic)rd Dec. 1983, passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Malpura. The accused petitioner wanted to take specimen signatures of PW 15 Bhoor Singh and to get the same compared by a hand writing expert at his own expenses. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. In my view full oportunity must be give to the accused for defending his case. There is no allegation against the accused that he wanted to prolong the trial without any just chase. In Ronald Wood Mathams and Ors. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 455 it was observed as under:
Although the evidence on record may tend to establish a strong case against the accused, he entitled to rebut and if certain documents would furnish good material for rebutting that case the Court, by declining to issue process for the examination of the witnesses connected with those documents, would deprive the accused of an opportunity of rebutting it. The accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given him to present his evidence and if it is denied to him, there is no fair trial and conviction cannot stand. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and charts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.
Learned Public Prosecutor did not contest the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner of permitting him to call PW 15 Bhoor Singh for taking his specimen signatures.
4. In view of these circumstances, this petition is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 23rd December, 1983, is set aside and he is directed to allow the petitioner to summon PW 15 Bhoor Singh for taking his specimen signatures and to examine handwriting expert at his own expenses.