Balakarupasamy vs State Represented By on 13 August, 2019
38. As held by this Court in Sonvir [Sonvir v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 486] ,
although Section 4 mentions that the police officer is
competent to take measurements of the accused, but to
dispel doubts as to its bona fides and to rule out the
fabrication of evidence, it is eminently desirable that they
were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate.
However, the aforesaid observations cannot be held to
mean that this Court observed that under Section 4, police
officers are not entitled to take fingerprints until the order
is taken from a Magistrate. If certain suspicious
circumstances do arise from a particular case relating to
lifting of fingerprints, in order to dispel or ward off such
suspicious circumstances, it would be in the interest of
justice to get orders from the Magistrate. Thus, there
cannot be any hard-and-fast rule that in every case, there
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.38/72
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.451, 458, 479, 482, 498 of 2019 and 60 of 2020
should be a Magisterial order for lifting the fingerprints of
the accused. Thus, it cannot be held that the fingerprint
evidence was illegally obtained merely due to the absence
of a Magisterial order authorising the same.