( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgement and order elated 3rd june 2006 passed below Exhibit 41 in sessions Case No. 160 of 2002 by the additional Sessions Judge. Viramgam and to direct that further in vestigation be made by an independent agency unconnected with present investigation machinery to conduct brain Mapping/brain Finger Printing Test of the accused.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had lodged First information Report being C. R. No. I 30 of 2002 with Mandal Police Station in connection with the murder of his wife on 25th June 2002. During the course of investigation the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with the said complaint on 30th June 2002. 2. 1 According to the Investigating officers the petitioner has taken the officers to the place where allegedly he had hidden his clothes and weapon of the crime. According to the investigating agency, they have recovered "surgical Blade" and "blood-stained clothes of the accused". However, according to the petitioner the recovery of the said articles were not made at the instance of the petitioner and according to the Panchnama. the weapon which was recovered after 8 days of the incident had fresh bloodstains on it. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the aforesaid Panchnama is false and the petitioner has been framed in the matter. 2. 2 In view of the above, the petitioner has submitted an application Exhibit 41 before the Sessions Judge. Viramgam, praying for further investigation in the matter and for an order that he may be subjected to brain mapping test by an independent investigating agency unconnected with the present investigating agency. The Additional Sessions Judge, viramgam, rejected the said application by order dated 3rd June 2006 against which the present petition has been filed.

( 3 ) MR. S. V. Raju, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the so-called discovery made at the instance of the petitioner is not actually made at the instance of the petitioner and the whole factum of the discovery is fabricated by the investigating agency. He submitted that this contention is supported by the fact that the alleged discovery of "surgical Blade" was made after about eight days from the date ot incident, but according to the Panchnama, it is having fresh bloodstains. However, no investigation has been made with regard to fresh bloodstains by the investigating agency.

3. 1 He further submitted that the Sessions court has erroneously rejected the application for Brain Mapping test on the ground that it would delay the trial. Mr. Raju further submitted that the petitioner is facing serious charge of offence of murder which is punishable with capital punishment and since the petitioner is innocent in order to establish his innocence, Brain Mapping test/brain Finger Printing Test would be necessary.

3. 2 Mr. Raju submitted that in the present case it is the case of the accused that he has been falsely involved in the matter to save a sitting Minister/her relative. It is his case that a false case of discovery/recovery has been made out after a lapse of almost 10 days. According to him the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident of murder. He submitted that there is no direct evidence against the accused involving him in the alleged murder and since a sitting Minister is involved the police have conducted a biased investigation with the sole purpose of saving the Minister and falsely implicating the petitioner.

3. 3 He further submitted that the prosecution was not sure of its position and therefore had asked for a lie-detection test at the stage of investigation and though the accused had very early, while in jail requested for a lie-detection test the same was not carried out only with a view to save important personalities whom the prosecution wants to protect.

3. 4 Mr. Raju has relied upon a decision in the case of Hasanbhai Walibliai Qureshi v. State of Gu