SHIV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the applications, who stand convicted for offences punishable under Section 3/7 of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, seek to challenge the correctness, validity and the propriety of the order dated 18-4-2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 0/2001 which arose out of the Special Criminal Case No. 163/96 State v. Shiv Kumar and Anr.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that after the conviction of the accused persons when the finger prints as required under Rule 254 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) were sought to be taken, the Applicants took an exception to it and submitted before the Court that as Section 3/7 is not mentioned in Rule 254, the Court was not authorised or entitled to take the finger prints. The learned Special Judge rejected the application simply observing that Rule 254 does not forbid the Court from taking the said finger prints, therefore, the finger prints could be taken. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicants have come to this Court.

(3.) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Applicants, placing his strong reliance on the language of Rule 254 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) submits that if the accused is convicted under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII or XVIII of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 109 or 110 of the Code or under the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938 (C.P. VII of 1938), only then the finger prints of a convict can be taken on a prescribed form. According to him, as Section 3/7 of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 does not find any mention in Rule 254 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal), the Special Judge was not authorised to require the Applicants to give their finger prints.