( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. D. Oza learned PP waives formal service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) PRESENT Revision Application is moved against the order dated 9. 2. 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 4, Ahmedabad allowing the applications preferred by the Investigating Officer dated 27. 1. 2004 and 30. 1. 2004 with reference to an offence registered with Shahibag Police station, Ahmedabad being CR-I 2 of 2004.

( 5 ) BOTH the petitioners, according to the case of the prosecution, are the original accused of the said offence punishable under Sections 376,342,338,234,323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (l) (b) and Section 85 of the bombay Prohibition Act.

( 6 ) IT is prayed by both the petitioners that the order under challenge, granting both the applications preferred by the investigating Officer, Assistant commissioner of Police, F Division, ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad may be quashed. Alternatively, it is prayed that the petitioners may be permitted to engage dna Forensic Examiners of their own choice and the investigating agency may be directed to see that the team DFS as well as the team of DNA Forensic examiners engaged by the petitioners jointly conduct the DNA finger printing test. The petitioners have also prayed one more alternative relief that at the time of taking of the sample of the blood for the purpose of conducting DNA finger printing test, the dna examiners engaged by the petitioners may be permitted to collect the sample of the blood at the same time for the purpose of taking DNA finger printing test and to give their independent opinion about their finding.

( 7 ) THE basic purpose of asking this relief in para 7 of the memo of the revision is that the petitioners have consistently raised a plea of alibi with the investigating agency and the agency is not paying any heed and the Investigating Officer has not even cared to ascertain the various facts told to the investigating office in support of their plea of alibi. The other bone of submission is that the test is very sensitive and the test being a scientific test, it should be conducted with utmost care and caution because some small/minor error may disturb the entire test and finding and that may result into serious prejudice to the accused.

( 8 ) THE anxiety of expressed by Mr. Saurin Shah learned counsel for the petitioner before the court is that, if proper care is not taken while drawing the sample and testing the sample drawn from the body of the accused with crime exhibit (the alleged muddamal or articles) then the original exhibit (article) may vanish because of its smallness and use in testing process and the accused may not get a chance to rebut the finding recorded by praying retesting even if they so desire at the time of placing their defences. Other aspects are also elaborately mentioned in the arguments, written submissions and other documents shown to the court today. So all relevant care and caution are required to be taken including the secrecy of the data. Thus according to Mr. Shah there should not be any objection on the part of the respondent State in permitting the accused to engage their own experts in the entire process, which the prosecution presently intends to undergo for DNA finger printing test. It is submitted that the names suggested by the petitioners can be scrutinised by the respondent-State.

( 9 ) MR. SHAH learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while dealing with the contentions raised in the memo of revision, has taken me through some part of the report of a Committee on DNA Forensic science and the work done by a commission on DNA Forensic Science published by National Academy less, washington D. C. 1996 and has pointed out that in our country without an Act like "dna IDENTIFICATION ACT 1994" or any other law estab