BALRAJ BHALLA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Balraj Bhalla for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25-10-1956 of Sri Ramesh Chandra Nigam, Magistrate First Class, Kanpur, respondent No 1, in criminal case No. 7 of 1954 (State v. R, K. Nigam and others), whereby he directed that the impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner be taken for purposes of comparison and report by an expert. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, namely, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, to forbear from taking any further steps in the matter of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner and to return the aforesaid impressions to the petitioner. There was a third request that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent No, 1 to refrain from admitting the evidence of impressions of thumb and toes of the petitioner in the aforementioned case

(2.) None of the respondents filed a counter-affidavit, though they put in appearance through the Standing Counsel. In the circumstances, the facts as mentioned in the petition and the affidavit accompanying thereto can be regarded as correct.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he is an employee of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Limited, juhi, Kanpur, and during the year 1954 was work ing as a clerk in the Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund Section of the said Mills. Leave wages to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- are said to have been misappropriated by certain employees in the leave-with-wages Section of the aforesaid Mills. The petitioner had no connection with this Section having been employed in another Section at the time of the alleged embezzlement. During the year 3.954, five persons were arrested in respect of the said embezzlement, one of whom was Raj Kumar Nigam. He turned an approver and in his statement implicated the petitioner and three other persons. According to the approver, the petitioner was a participant in the conspiracy to misappropriate the aforesaid amount by torging thumb impressions of workers of the Company to whom leave wages were due and thereby did misappropriate the amount. It was alleged that the petitioner had put his thumb impressions on certain vouchers. The petitioner surrendered himself in Court on 21-9-1956, when he was released on bail.