The right against self-incrimination and personal autonomy in making statements are essential components of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

SHINDE J.

1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.1.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shevgaon thereby granting permission of Narco Analysis Test of the petitioner in connection with crime No. I-166 of 2009, dated 30.12.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 409, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. registered with Shevgaon Police station.

2. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The principal grievance raised in this petition is that the impugned order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Shevgaon allowing the respondent to conduct the Narco analysis test of the petitioner is passed though petitioner strongly opposed for conducting Narco Analysis Test on health ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that granting permission of Narco analysis test amounts to infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.1.2010 the investigating Officer filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C. Shevgaon thereby seeking permission to allow him to conduct Narco analysis test of the petitioner and another accused. The petitioner strongly opposed the Narco test on the ground that he is suffering from swelling of liver and also have complaints about the low blood pressure and migraine and there is danger to the life of the petitioner if the Narco analysis test is conducted. It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of strong objection, learned J.M.F.C. has allowed the application of Investigating Officer and directed to conduct Narco analysis test of the petitioner and the accused No.1, by judgment and order dated 28.1.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the written say filed on his behalf before the learned J.M.F.C. to the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to conduct Narco Analysis Test. On perusal of the said say, which is at page 31 of the compilation, it is clear that the petitioner had opposed the prayer in the application for Narco Analysis Test.

5. We have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent-State. The order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. on 28.1.2010 reads thus;-

“Perused application and say of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No.1 is ready for Narco test. Accused No.2 opposed application on the grounds of illness and his health problem only. Therefore if precaution is taken and rules followed at time of Narco test, the purpose of accused No.2 will be solved. The Narco test will be performed only after assurance of medically fitness of accused. Hence, in above circumstances I.O. hereby authorized person to investigate has process to conduct Narco test of accused to find out truth. Hence, application is allowed. I.O. To follow rules strict in respect of accused No.2 in respect of his health.”

Bare perusal of the order reproduced herein above, it is clear that the petitioner herein who is original accused No.2 has not consented for Narco Analysis test on the ground of illness and health problems.

6. We have carefully perused the pleading in the petition, annexures thereto and after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties we are of the opinion that the issue involved in this petition i.e. whether the Narco analysis test, Brain Mapping test and Lie Detector test are violative of the Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India is no more res-integra and completely answered by the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Selvi and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2010 (3) Supreme 558. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 192 of the said judgment, held thus;-

“192. So far as the j