V. PARTHIBAN, J.

1. The present criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Cr.M.P.No.199 of 2017 in M.C.No.58 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein for second DNA test.

2. According to the petitioner that he was married to the first respondent and a child was born after the marriage, the second respondent herein. But, according to the petitioner, he was not a biological father. Since the paternity of the second respondent was being questioned, a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed i.e., Crl.M.P.No.1005 of 2015, seeking for DNA test. The said Criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore. After completion of the DNA Test as per the direction of the Trial Court, a report was submitted before the Trial Court. Thereafter, while maintenance case was being taken up for hearing, the second application was filed by the petitioner herein for the DNA test stating that there was some discrepancy in the first DNA report.

3. Before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second DNA test was necessary, since the paternity of the second respondent was being questioned. According to him, the blood samples collected were manipulated and therefore, only to prove the paternity of the second respondent, the second DNA test was imperative.

4. The above submission was repulsed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the blood samples were collected and the process was initiated in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court below. Therefore, there is no necessity to order for second DNA test and such application filed on behalf of the petitioner, was intended to drag the proceedings and to avoid facing any order being passed in the maintenance case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after adverting to the submissions and materials on record, had dismissed the application seeking for second DNA test. The same is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision case.

5. This Court has perused the materials on record and a detailed order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had infact relied on two decisions of this Court and on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the decisions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the petition. A detailed reasons have been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the conclusion ultimately arrived at by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to be well founded. The findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the conclusion reached by the Trial Court as found in paragraph Nos.9 to 13, are extracted below:-

"09. In S.Veeralakshmi vs. The Superintendent of Police, dated 03.02.2015 [CDJ 2015 MHC 1353] our Hon'ble High Court after considering all relevant judgments regarding DNA test, Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another (2014-2- L.S. (Crl.) 621), Sakthivel vs. Karpagam ((2005) 3 MLJ 483), Abdul Rahuman vs. State, dated 31.03.2015 and issued the guidelines as follows:-

"16. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, while dismissing the present Criminal Original Petition, this Court could emerge the following in the matter of ordering second DNA test.

(vi) The Courts cannot compel the parties to undergo DNA test for the second time;

(vii) The earlier DNA test cannot be treated as doubtful or set aside mere based on bald and vague allegations made by the party against whom the result of the said test was declared negative;

(viii) When already DNA test report is available, there is no need to order second DNA test unless it is proved by the party who raised objections, that it has been exposed to rea