- (1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 at basirhat in the district of 24-Parganas (N) was trying the ST. No. 3 (7) of 2005 corresponding to Swarup Nagar P. S. Case No. 71 dated 6. 8. 2003 against the present petitioner under Section 376/417 of the I. P. C. and after framing of charge, 14 witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter on 9. 8. 2007 the learned Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the case filed a petition before the learned Judge praying for DNA test of the victim girl, of the present petitioner and the child born of the girl. The learned Judge allowed the petition holding that if the DNA test is done it would almost conclusively determine the paternity or otherwise of the accused petitioner in respect of the child and it was observed in the impugned order dated 17. 8. 2007 that this was the proper way of arriving at the truth. The impugned order reveals that similar petition was also filed before the predecessor of the learned Presiding Judge, but that petition was rejected on the ground that allowance of the petition would amount to interference with the investigation of the case. Since the investigation was over and trial was in progress, the learned Judge reasoned, there was no predicament now to make an order on the prayer prosecution since renewed before him for holding the DNA test.
(2.) THIS order of the learned Judge is the subject matter of the revisional application on the ground that the order is bad in law and without application of the judicial mind.
(3.) I have heard learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant and learned Advocate appearing forthe State. It has been submitted by Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that once a petition was rejected by the learned Predecessor in office of the present learned Judge on 21. 4. 2006 a contrary order on the renewed prayer was illegal.;