Mohd. Yamin, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
(2.) Accused-petitioner-Imichand faced trial under section 420 IPC before the learned Magistrate. On completion of prosecution evidence his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and then the accused was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. The accused- petitioner thought it proper to examine himself as a witness and he was so examined. Then other witnesses were also produced on his behalf and the case was finally heard by learned Magistrate. He reserved the case for judgment on the date on which the judgment was to be pronounced, he passed the impugned order by which he again examined the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of his own statement recorded as defence witness wherein he had denied putting his thumb impression on the document in question. Learned Magistrate following a very strange procedure like a zealous prosecutor took thumb impression of accused on some papers and sent them for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that u/Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India there is a guarantee that nobody can be made a witness against himself. He submitted that there is an exception to it and i.e. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that too is done when the case is under investigation by the police. He submitted that the learned Magistrate had no such power to take thumb impression of the accused and send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory.;