ARUN GULAB GAVALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. BY the present petition, the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of direction to the respondents to record statements of the petitioner in the presence of his Advocate and Medical Officer and further to prohibit the respondents from undertaking Narcotic analysis Test, lie detector test or a brain mapping test on the petitioner as well as to withdraw the notice dated 16th November, 2005 issued for taking the petitioner to bangalore.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that there is no procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel a witness to undergo Narcotic Analysis Test. Besides, as such test involve injection of certain solution in the body of the witness, there is a possibility of invasion of some other disease in the body of the petitioner if he is compelled to undergo such test. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents cannot compel the witness to be taken to different places in the course of investigation and cannot be compelled to attend laboratory at Bangalore for the purpose of Brain Mapping Test or Lie Detector Test as it would be violative of his fundamental right assured under Article 21 of the Constitution of india. Simultaneously, the petitioner states that he is ready and willing to assist the police for recording any of his statements and assures to cooperate with the police in the matter of investigation in relation to which he is proposed to be subjected to such tests.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing attention to the decision of the Apex Court in (Prabhu Dayal deorahv. The District Magistrate, Kamrup and ore. ) , reported in 1974 (1) S. C. C. 103 and particularly to paragraph 21 thereof, submitted that subjecting a witness to such test would violate a personal liberty assured to the witness under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also further submitted that any admission or any statement in the nature of confession being made or disclosed or revealed in the course of investigation by adopting such procedure, then it would amount to obtaining a confession from the person in relation to the alleged offence in respect of which the investigation is being carried out and such confession would not be admissible and could not be relied upon, and from that angle also apart from such procedure being a futile exercise, it would also violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.