BHUPENDRA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point for determination in this reference is, whether an order directing an accused person to furnish his finger impressions for the purpose of comparison with certain disputed similar impressions under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or otherwise, would be contrary to the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. For reasons to be stated shortly, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not be infringed in such a case.

(2.) Under Article 20(3), no person, accused of any offence, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. We have, therefore, to see whether by calling upon the petitioner Bhupendra Nath, to give his finger impressions, the trial Magistrate has compelled him i.e., the petitioner to be a witness against himself.

(3.) When arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at Bilaspur on the 24th ultimo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended, vehemently, that the order of the Magistrate, directing the taking of the petitioner's finger impressions, was nothing short of compelling him to be a witness against himself. Reliance was placed upon the following authorities:-- (a) M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300, wherein their Lordships observed as follows: