The main legal point established is that the police cannot obtain measurements and photographs of unconvicted individuals without proper authorization, as mandated by the relevant legal provisions.

( 1 ) SINCE common question of law is involved in these petitions, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed.

( 2 ) THE points for consideration in both the petitions are: -1. Whether Police can take steps of taking measurements or photographs of unconvicted persons in the absence of any sanction from the competent authority?2. Whether prescription mentioned in the Police Manual can be said has force of law or otherwise?3. Whether provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920 is subservient to the Karnataka Police Act and Police Manual or otherwise?

( 3 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner No. 1 in the first petition is an official employed in Government Bangalore Diary. Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Lorry and running an Automobile Workshop. Petitioner No. 1 in the second writ petition is a Jr. Telecom Officer which is one of the departments of Union of India. Petitioner No. 2 in the second writ petition is the Silk Merchant of Bangalore City. The respondents, in the absence of any complaint by the Police as required under Ss. 54 and 55 of the Karnataka Police Act of 1963 and in the absence of any prior permission granted by the Magistrate took these 4 petitioners to the concerned Police Station and obtained their either finger foot prints or photographs or both. When petitioners protested, respondents informed them that they require the same for further investigation and also to maintain history sheet.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the acts of respondents, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking for the following relief (Relief in first writ petition): -"wherefore the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents by way of writ of mandamus to destroy the photos and finger and foot prints of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. " (Relief in IInd Writ petition)"wherefore, under the circumstances, the petitioners above named pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to remove the photos of the petitioners from the galary of photos where the photos of habitual offenders and convicts are displayed and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including costs. "on the following grounds: - (1) The acts of respondents in compelling the petitioners to put their thumb marks and obtaining their photos are not only acts of highhandedness on the part of respondents but they are a clear case of misusing the powers on the one hand and misconstruing the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, Karnataka Police Act and instructions given in the Police Manual and also Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920; (2) The instructions that have been given in the Police Manual regarding maintaining history-sheet are not sanctioned by Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920; (3) Before taking such an action, the Police has to take prior sanction from the Magistrate as required under S. 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920; (4) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Karpagam Kamath and Smt. T. N. Manjula Devi submit that since the above requirements are not complied with, the relief as sought by the petitioners be granted.

( 5 ) AS an answer to these contentions, Sri Satish D. Doddamani, learned H. C. G. P. submits that mere securing photos of the petitioners or procuring their signatures or finger or foot prints or thumb impression cannot be equated to that of putting them in a rowdy list. The said information or particulars are required just to maintain a history-sheet. Merely because a history-sheet is maintained in respect of person, that does not mean that such person is included in the rowdy list. According to him, to maintain a history-sheet of a person, one need not be a habitual offender. It is sufficient if the concerned officer entertains a mere susp