( 1 ) THE only question that arises in this case and which has been referred to us for decision is whether a direction made by the First Class Magistrate of Mhow asking the petitioner to give his thumb impression and specimen writing and signature for comparison is prohibited by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the Special Police Establishment of the Government of India has registered a case against the applicant before us for offences under Sections 409 and 471, I. P. C. The charge against the applicant is that on certain dates some money-orders were entrusted to him for payment to payees; and that instead of paying the amounts of the money-orders to the payees, he misappropriated the amounts and returned the money-order forms with forged thumb impressions and signatures of the payees. The accused is a postman. Soon after the arrest of the accused and during the course of investigation, an application was made by the Police before the First Class Magistrate of Mhow for a direction to the accused to give his thumb impression, specimen handwriting and signature in Court forcomparison. This application was purported to be one under Secti