” The sole accused in Crime No. 122 of 2011 of Bommuru Police Station filed this Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (' the Cr. P.C.” for short) assailing the orders dated 30-7-2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry of East Godavari District whereby the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the orders dated 14-5-2012 of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry in Cri M.P. No. 1492 of 2012.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition may be stated, in brief, as follows :” ' A written report was given by the 2nd respondent/1st informant against the petitioner/accused and on such report the present case in Crime No. 122 of 2011 was registered by the Station House Officer, Bommur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (' the IPC” for short) and also Section 3(1)(x)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The broad allegations in the said report of the 2nd respondent/informant are to the effect that she had developed acquaintance with the accused and that the accused promised to marry her and had continued physical contacts with her without her consent having promised that he would marry her and that subsequently she had become pregnant and that on that the accused demanded her to have abortion and that when she did not agree he started avoiding her and abused her in filthy language using her caste and further threatened her with dire consequences and thus deceived and cheated her. During the course of investigation, the accused who is an advocate had obtained anticipatory bail and had subsequently surrendered before the police as per the directions of this Court and was later enlarged on bail. While so, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajahmundry had filed a memo before the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry seeking a direction to the accused to appear before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of giving blood sample for conducting DNA finger print test/DNA profiling to prove the guilt of the accused. The said memo was registered as Cri MP No. 1492 of 2012. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused, the learned Magistrate by the order 14-5-2012 had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajahmundry to take steps for securing the presence of the de facto complainant along with her child and to serve summons upon the accused to facilitate their appearance before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory on 18-6-2012. The learned Session Judge had confirmed the said orders when the said order was challenged in Cri. R.P. No. 32 of 2012 before him. Therefore, the accused is before this Court.”

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent/State and perused the material record. No submissions are made on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

4. The points for determination are ”

(i) Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his blood or other sample stated in Section 53 of the Cr. P.C. during the course of investigation into an offence?

(ii) Assuming that there is no violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, whether the order of the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge directing to serve summons upon the accused for the purpose of facilitating his appearance before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and authorising for securing his blood sample for the purpose of DNA finger print test/DNA profiling is liable to be set aside in the facts and cir