High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajendra And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3556 of 2006  RD-AH 11438 (13 July 2006)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
Heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.
Sri Mishra contended that in this case evidence against the appellants is of fingerprint expert. He contended that under "The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920" no permission of Magistrate was taken prior to taking of thumb impression and, therefore, the sole evidence against the appellants cannot be relied upon. He further contended that the appellants are in jail since last four years. He further argued that there was nothing on record to connect the appellants with the crime and the procedure for taking of thumb impression is extremely hazy and doubtful.
Learned A.G.A. invited the attention of the Court on Section 4 of the said Act and contended that no prior permission of the Magistrate was required before taking of fingerprint impression of the accused. He further contended that the Expert has reached on the spot soon after the incident and from there he collected the fingerprint of the appellants.
We consider it appropriate to look into the record of the trial court for consideration of bail prayer of the appellants and for considering the submissions raised at the Bar.
Office is directed to summon the record within a period of four weeks.
List this appeal in the 1st week of September, 2006 for consideration of bail prayer of the appellants.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.