JEYA PRIYA AND SIVAKARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND DHANASEKARA PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2014 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 4049 of 2013 in P.R.C. No. 41 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition filed by the prosecution, for sending the accused Dhanasekara Pandian and the child of the de facto complainant for DNA test in order to prove the paternity of the child.

(2.) WHEN notice was ordered on the accused in this Criminal Revision Petition, it was reported that he was not appearing before the Judicial Magistrate and non -bailable warrant was issued against him on 19.03.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur and the same is pending and that the whereabouts of the accused was not known. On 28.03.2014, when the matter was listed, Mr. S. Balaji, Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused and sought for time. He was also furnished with the copies of the petition and typed set of papers and the case was adjourned to 02.04.2014. In the mean time, Mr. S. Balaji also filed his vakalat for the accused on 01.04.2014 and the same is on record. On 02.04.2014, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was present, but Mr. S. Balaji, learned counsel for the accused, whose name is printed in the cause list, did not appear.

(3.) THE reasoning given by the Magistrate that the accused is protected under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, has no legs to stand, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court way back in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, reported in : AIR 1961 SC 1808. This is a Constitutional Bench judgment of eleven Judges and this judgment has been extensively discussed in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, reported in : (2010) 7 SCC 263. After Kathi Kalu Oghad's case, taking of finger impressions, footprints, handwriting, signature, blood, semen, saliva etc. from the accused, will not in any way offend the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.