ANKUSH WADHAWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant misc. petition has been submitted by the accused impugning the order dated 14.7.1998 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Presiding Officer, Special Court Communal Riots Kota, whereby the application moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short the CBI) seeking permission to obtain blood sample of the accused-petitioner for DNA Test, was allowed.

(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that an FIR was lodged by the informant Zile Singh, father of deceased Neela Rana on 21.5.1998 against the accused-petitioner and other co-accused with the Police Station Nayapura Kota. Case under sections 302, 376, 363, 366, 201 Si 217 CPC, was registered and the accused-petitioner was arrested. The Investigating Officer took the blood sample of the accused-petitioner and sent it for analysis to CDFD Hyderabad. The sample was not found fit for the purposes of analysis and the laboratory asked for another blood sample. As the investigation of the.case has since been changed, the CBI moved application before the learned Court-below seeking permission of the Court to take blood sample of the accused-petitioner for DNA Test. The application was hotly contested by the accused-petitioner but the learned Court below permitted the CBI to take blood sample of the accused.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the CBI raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the petition. Mr. Chatterjee canvassed that the blood sample has already been taken and analysed by the laboratory, as such the petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel contended that the investigating officer can seek permission of the Court under section 53 Crimial P.C. to take blood sample of the accused and Art. 20(3) of the Constitution is not attracted. Reliance was placed on State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808 and Mahipal Maderna Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1971 page 43.