The prosecution is before this Court calling in

question

an

order

dated

10.01.2020

passed

in

Spl.C.C.No.363/2015,

whereby

the

concerned

Court

declines to accede to the application filed by the

prosecution for conduct of a NARCO Analysis Test upon the

accused.

- 3 -

Heard the learned Spl.P.P., Sri. Jagadish D.

Hiremath,

appearing

for

the

petitioner

and

Sri. O. Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 3.

Brief facts that leads the prosecution to this

Court in the subject petition, are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered on 30.03.2015

for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act") and

Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The issue in

the case at hand is not with regard to the merit of the

matter. When the evidence of the accused was concluded,

an application is filed under Sections 53, 53A and 54 of

the Cr.P.C. and under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 for conduct of a NARCO Analysis Test upon the

accused in the light of the wavering statements that were

made during the examination. This is turned down by the

- 4 -

concerned Court which drives the petitioner to this Court

in the subject petition.

4.

Learned Spl.P.P., Sri. Jagadish D. Hiremath,

representing the prosecution would contend that the issue

involved is with regard to the provisions of the Atrocities

Act and Section 420 of the IPC, which is invoked on

account of alleged cheating the victim by the accused to

an extent of Rs.39,51,000/- and therefore, seeks Analysis

Test. On a consent being sought by the concerned Court

upon the accused and the accused declining to give

consent for a NARCO Analysis Test, the concerned Court

rejects the application on 10.01.2020. The order is

erroneous is the submission of the learned counsel.

5.

Learned counsel, Sri. O. Rajanna, representing

respondent Nos.1 and 3 would contend that the consent is

sine-qua-non for an application to be allowed for conduct

of a NARCO Analysis Test on the accused and the said

consent having been declined, no fault can be found with

the order passed by the concerned Court.

- 5 -

6.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and

have perused the material on record.

7.

The issue with regard to whether NARCO

Analysis Test should be permitted upon the accused,

notwithstanding his declining consent is no longer res

integra and need not detain the Court for long as the Apex

Court in the case of SELVI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF

KARNATAKA¹ has laid down the guidelines insofar as the

conduct of NARCO Analysis Test. The said judgment is

followed by this Court in plethora of cases, one of which is,

in the case of RAMACHANDRA BALIGA V. THE STATE

AND OTHERS in Crl.P.No.7613/2016 dated 12.06.2017,

wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as

follows:

"2.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of

two orders, one passed by the learned Magistrate,

JMFC (III Court) at Mangaluru in CC No.2097/2016

and another one passed by the I Addl. District and

1 (2010) 7 SCC 263

- 6 -

Sessions

Judge,

DK,

Mangaluru

in

Crl.R.P.No.127/2016, in rejecting the application filed

by the investigating officer on 27.06.2016 seeking

permission of the Trial Court to conduct brain

mapping, polygraph test and Narco Analysis test on

respondent No.2 who is arrayed as accused No.1 in

the said case. The said application was filed by the

State through investigating officer which came to be

rejected by the Trial Court mainly relying upon the

decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court reported in

(2010) 3 SCC (Crl) 1 between Selvi and Others Vs

State of Karnataka.

3.

Being aggrieved by the said order,

defacto-complainant by name Ramachandra Baliga

(petitioner herein) has preferred the Revision Petition

before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.127/2016.

The revisional Court also relying upon the said

decision has rejected th