JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is an application under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. It prays that the Magistrate be directed not to shave the applicant's beard and hair against his will. 2. The applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 302, I. P. C. in connection with the murder of one Shri Nath, a retired District Judge which is alleged to have been committed on 27-4-1962. On 8-3-65 the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Allahabad directed that the identification proceedings may take place at Deoria Jail where the petitioner is lodged at present. Consequently the identification proceedings are being conducted by the Judicial Magistrate Salempur, district Deoria. 3. On 5-4-65 the police authorities made an application to this Magistrate stating that at the time of the commission of the murder the accused is stated to have been clean shaven. Now he has deliberately grown a beard. The beard will be a great obstacle to the identifying witnesses because they had seen him before and soon after the murder, without a beard. It was prayed that in the interest of justice, the accused be directed to shave his beard. 4. On 19-4-65 the accused filed an objection before the learned Magistrate. He stated that the beard and the long hair are a part of his religious belief and faith and that he should not be compelled to shave them. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 21-4-65 held that the accused can be directed to get his beard and long hair shaved and, if necessary, he can be forced to do so. He issued directions accordingly. Thereupon the petitioner has come to this Court. 5. Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there is no provision in any law authorising the shaving of an under-trial prisoner contrary to his wishes. Para. 421 Jail Manual U. P. is relevant. It runs as follows: "An under-trial prisoner shall not be allowed to cut his hair or to shave in a way that would alter his personal appearance so as to make it difficult to recognise him. Prisoners who have been more than a month in jail may, if they so desire, have their hair cut to the length it was at the time of their admission. Prisoners who have been more than a month in jail may, if they so desire, have their hair cut to the length it was at the time of their admission. The hair of an under-trial prisoner may, however, be cut when the medical officer considers it necessary, but it shall not be cut shorter than is necessary for the purposes of health and cleanliness." 6. This provision, therefore, authorises the authorities to see that an under-trial prisoner does not change his appearance by cutting his hair or shaving or vice versa. They can take such steps as are necessary to keep the under-trial prisoners in the same state as he was when he was admitted to jail. On the ground of health and cleanliness and on the recommendation of the medical officer, the hair of an under-trial prisoner can be cut; but that too only in so far as it is necessary for the purposes of health and cleanliness. There is no power to otherwise touch the body of an under-trial prisoner for the purpose of shaving his beard or cutting his hair. If such a thing is done on an unwilling prisoner, it would amount to an assault and would be a crime at law. No Magistrate can direct that a crime be committed. 7. For the State it is said that the operation of shaving the beard and the hair being of a trivial nature, involving no dis-comfort, much less any danger to the body, in the interest of justice, the prosecution should not be denied an opportunity to get evidence and the petitioner should not be permitted to take shelter behind a feigned religious objection. Whether the petitioner's case that he had a religious objection or whether the petitioner's attitude in expressing his unwillingness to be shaved is reasonable or not, is immaterial. The petitioner's reluctance to provide the prosecution with evidence that would establish his guilt, is equally irrelevant. The petitioner does not have to explain why he is unwilling to be subjected to this operation. It is for the prosecution to establish that the applicant is bound to submit to the shaving. 8. The petitioner's reluctance to provide the prosecution with evidence that would establish his guilt, is equally irrelevant. The petitioner does not have to explain why he is unwilling to be subjected to this operation. It is for the prosecution to establish that the applicant is bound to submit to the shaving. 8. In Forde v. Skinner, 172 E.R. 687 Bayley J. held that however desirable such a regulation as that of cutting the hair of persons in a poor house may be with regard to health and cleanliness, yet it is altogether unauthorised by law and is wrongful, if done without the consent of the party. Agnew v. Johson, 13 Cox's Criminal Law Cases 625 is another case in point. Annie Agnew, a girl of 18 years was charged for concealment of birth of an illegitimate child and on that count she was arrested and taken to a police station. The police authorities wanted to get her medically examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not she had been recently delivered of a child. The police applied for and obtained a written order from a Magistrate authorising such a medical examination. Thereupon Dr. Mckey came, and on her refusal to submit to a medical examination, he forced her to un-dress and then he appropriately examined her breasts, and abdomen. Lopes J. in an action brought by Annie Agnew against the doctor for damages for an assault held that the defendant had no right either at common law or by statute to order the examination, and that it constituted an assault. 9. In W. v. W., 1963 (2) All. E. R. 386 Cairns J., held that the Court has no power to order a wife to undergo a blood test against her will or to order a child to undergo such a test in order to determine the paternity of the child as that would be an assault. 10. 9. In W. v. W., 1963 (2) All. E. R. 386 Cairns J., held that the Court has no power to order a wife to undergo a blood test against her will or to order a child to undergo such a test in order to determine the paternity of the child as that would be an assault. 10. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the following passage from Asharfi v. State, 1960 A. L. J. 595 at 608 : "If, therefore, the Magistrate comes to entertain good cause for the belief that the suspect has indulged in such a trick, it is open to him to defer the identification of the clean shaven suspect until he has grown the hair of the proper size or to get the bearded suspect shaved, No violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution occurs if the Magistrate does so. See Ram Swamp v. State, A.I.R. 1958 All.119. Their Lordships were not concerned with the problem whether this could be done against the wishes of an accused. They were concerned with Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The passage quoted above is merely a passing observation. The case of Ram Swarups A. I.R. 1958 All. 119 relied on was a case where the accused had voluntarily submitted to the Magistrate's order to give his specimen writing. It was held that he had waived his constitutional privilege under Article 20(3). The case is, therefore, distinguishable. 11. In my opinion the petitioner cannot, by a judicial order, be compelled to get his beard and long hair shaved. Rule order dated 21-4-65 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Salempur, district Deoria is set aside.