IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1811 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.250/2006 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- AJIMON, S/O.PAPPAN, KAITHAMATTOM HOUSE, KOCHUKARUMTHARUVI, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMEDU-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1811 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C. At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner wanted a defence witness to be examined. He wanted a D.N.A test to be conducted to decide the question whether he is the biological father of the child born as a result of the alleged rape. The learned Judge by Annexure-C order allowed the said request, but subject to the condition that the petitioner must bear the expenses for the test. The petitioner challenges that part of the direction in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary samples have already been given to the centre. 2. I am called upon to invoke and exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prosecution did not obviously want to rely on the result of the D.N.A test. The investigator or the prosecutor did not want such evidence to be adduced. However, it is the petitioner who wanted such defence Crl.M.C. No.1811 of 2008 2 evidence to be adduced. The prayer was allowed subject to conditions by the learned Sessions Judge. If the petitioner has a grievance that such test ought to have been conducted by the prosecution, certainly the petitioner can advance that contention while advancing arguments on complicity. The petitioner cannot obviously, in the facts and circumstances of this case, compel the prosecution to meet the expenses of the defence witness for conduct of such a costly test. I am not expressing any final opinion on this question. The petitioner's option to challenge the impugned order along with final judgment, if the challenge be necessary, shall remain. 3. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. I make it clear that all that I decide is that there is no need to interfere with the impugned interlocutory order at this stage by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-