S.K. SEN, J. : This Revisional application is directed against an order by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, permitting the Investigating Officer to take finger impressions of the petitioner Mahal Chand Sethia for the purpose of investigation of a case under Ss. 120B/420/466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before him. Mr. Sasthi Charan Roy for the petitioner has urged that such direction offends against the Constitutional provisions of Art. 20 (3), which provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Mr. Roy has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court (M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300) where it was held that an accused could not be compelled to produce an incriminating document or a document which might prove incriminating, and that compulsory production of such document was included within the term "the accused being compelled to be a witness against himself". In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not have to consider the question of thumb impression. But Mr. Roy seeks to extend the same principle and urges that the direction on an accused to give his thumb