Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who is an accused in a cheating case was arrested at Madras and produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Tellicherry and was released on bail. On 20 9 61 an application was made to the Magistrate for taking the specimen handwriting and signature of the accused. On notice being issued, the accused appeared and opposed the application and the learned Sub-Magistrate passed the followed order: If the accused is willing to comply with the requisition he may do so. He is informed that he is free to give his sample of handwriting or not to give and there is no compulsion." Later on 15 5 1962, the detective Inspector, Crime Branch, C. I. D. who was investigating into the case filed another petition requesting that the accused's specimen handwriting and signatures may be taken. The then Magistrate passed an order in the following terms: "The accused will be directed to give his specimen handwriting and signature. Direct the accused to appear before this court on 26 6 62". The accused appeared in court and filed his objections. After hearing the arguments the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 23-8-62 which reads: "I have already passed an order on 14 6 62 on the petition dated 15 5 62 from the detective inspector, Crime branch, C. I. D., Trivandrum to direct the accused to give him specimen handwriting and signature. Direct the accused to appear before this court on 5 9 62." The matter was taken up in revision before the Sessions Judge of Tellicherry, who while holding that the second Magistrate could not have gone back on the order passed by the first Magistrate, refused to interfere on the ground that the order was in substance correct and interests of justice did not require any interference. Aggrieved with the order this revision has been filed. 2. The question that arises for decision in this petition is whether a direction given by a court to an accused person to give specimen writings, thumb impressions, finger prints or foot prints to be used for comparison under the provisions of S.73 of the Evidence Act infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Art.20 (3) of the Constitution. 2. The question that arises for decision in this petition is whether a direction given by a court to an accused person to give specimen writings, thumb impressions, finger prints or foot prints to be used for comparison under the provisions of S.73 of the Evidence Act infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Art.20 (3) of the Constitution. Various decisions were cited at the bar, but it is unnecessary to refer to any one of them because the position is now settled beyond controversy by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR. 1961 SC. 1808). There it was held that the direction by a Magistrate to accused persons to give signatures, specimen writings, thumb impressions, finger prints or foot prints which the police may require in the course of investigation will not amount to compelling the accused persons to be witnesses against themselves. So the order passed by the second Class Magistrate directing the petitioner to give specimen handwriting and signature is irreproachable. 3. Regarding the question whether the Magistrate could have passed the impugned order, I am not sure that the Magistrate had no power to pass the order complained against as it is doubtful whether S.369 Crl. P. C., would strictly apply. It is unnecessary to decide this point because even if the Magistrate had no jurisdiction if his order is the correct order that order could have been maintained by the learned Sessions judge and even if the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to amend his earlier order, the amended order being the correct order which ought to have been passed, I hereby maintain it as an order of this court. Let the records be sent to the court below so that further proceedings may be resumed. The order of stay made by this court is vacated.