Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam allowing the C.B.I. Team to take the seven police officers (who are the petitioners in this revision petition) to Delhi for being subjected to polygraphic test at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. A copy of the order has been read before me and it does not indicate that the learned Magistrate specifically granted any such permission. The order only allows the request of the C.B.I. officers concerned that the accused persons arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate may be given to their custody for a period of 12 days from 11-11-1983. 2. These petitioners have been arrested in the course of investigation by the C.B.I. of a case relating to the suspected murder in March, 1981 of George Soman, who was then the Sub Inspector of Police, Panoor Police Station. Evidently, the investigation by the C.B.I. was arranged in view of the agitation against the inefficacy of the investigation conducted by the local police and the Crime Branch. It appears as if the present investigating team is of the opinion that George Soman met with homicidal death and not suicidal death as was suspected at one time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners complained that the constitutional rights of the petitioners were not protected by the learned Magistrate. Petitioners were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 11-11-1983 at 9.45 A.M. and it was then that C.B.I. filed the report praying for police custody of the accused persons. Even at the time, all the petitioners informed the learned Magistrate that they intend to engage Advocate Sri. M. K. Damodaran to represent them and that they may be permitted to avail of his services. The learned Magistrate instructed the C.B.I. officers to take one of the accused, who was put forward as representative of the other accused to the office of Advocate Sri M. K. Damodaran to enable him to give necessary instructions to the Advocate. Time was granted till 1 P.M. for the accused and their Advocate to prepare their ease and to appear before the learned Magistrate. At 1 P.M. Advocate Sri. Jose associated with Advocate Sri. M. K. Damodaran appeared in court and Sri. Jose, Advocate, represented that Sri. Damodaran prays for two days' time to enable Sri. Time was granted till 1 P.M. for the accused and their Advocate to prepare their ease and to appear before the learned Magistrate. At 1 P.M. Advocate Sri. Jose associated with Advocate Sri. M. K. Damodaran appeared in court and Sri. Jose, Advocate, represented that Sri. Damodaran prays for two days' time to enable Sri. Damodaran to prepare and present the bail application on behalf of the accused. However, the learned Magistrate heard the counsel and the Prosecutor and passed the order allowing the C.B.I officials concerned to keep the accused in their custody for 12 days from 11-11-1983. I fail to see how it could be said that the constitutional rights of the petitioners were violated by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners expressed an apprehension that the petitioners may be subjected to certain tests which may lead to involuntary answers being given by the accused, even of an incriminating nature. Learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared for respondents 1 and 2 submitted before me that as at present advised, no such tests are expected to be arranged other than the polygraphic test. It is made clear that the C.B.I. officers concerned shall not subject the petitioners to any test other than the polygraphic test without due intimation to the petitioners' counsel and the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. 5. The main objection voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the polygraphic test. According to the learned counsel, even the subjection to this test, trespasses into the constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioners, which he described as the petitioners' right to silence. No doubt, the petitioners have a right to silence in so far as the questions tending to answers of self incriminating nature are concerned. But such protection does not exist in regard to putting other questions to the accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and another (AIR. 1978 SC. 1025). Even this decision makes it clear that the investigator has right to interrogate not only witnesses but also persons suspected of having committed offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and another (AIR. 1978 SC. 1025). Even this decision makes it clear that the investigator has right to interrogate not only witnesses but also persons suspected of having committed offence. Therefore, under the guise of protecting the constitutional rights of the petitioners there is no doubt that those rights are valuable and have to be protected by courts of law the right of the investigators to question the accused cannot be curtailed. 6. Polygraphic test is popularly known as Lie detector test The process of the test is such that apparently, the persons conducting the test would be able to find out which among the answers given by the person tested are true and which among the answers so given are not true. I am unable to find what legitimate objection any accused could raise for being subjected to such test, as long as he is not compelled to give incriminating answers in the process. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that 7 accused persons are now far away at Delhi. There is no means to prevent the officers concerned from subjecting the petitioners to such illegal compulsion. If this be the apprehension of the petitioners, I think, the apprehension could be allayed by issuing appropriate directions. 7. The Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy's case has made it clear that if an accused to be interrogated by the police, expresses a desire or wish to have his lawyer by his side when his examination goes on, this facility shall not be denied (See para 59 of the reported decision). Learned counsel for the petitioners made it clear that even tomorrow arrangements could be made to see that petitioners' advocate is present in New Delhi. Naturally the advocate must be in a position to meet the accused to inform them of their constitutional rights, if they have not already been so informed. In the result, the Crl. R.P. is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The C.B.I. Officers shall not at New Delhi subject the petitioners herein to any scientific test other than the polygraphic test without due intimation to the petitioners' advocate and also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. 2. In the result, the Crl. R.P. is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The C.B.I. Officers shall not at New Delhi subject the petitioners herein to any scientific test other than the polygraphic test without due intimation to the petitioners' advocate and also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. 2. Petitioners' advocate submitted that arrangements would be made to secure service of an advocate at New Delhi to represent the petitioners. In case any such advocate approached the C.B.I. officers for an interview with the petitioners, such an interview for a reasonable period, shall be allowed by the C.B.I. officers. 3. The C.B.I. officers shall inform the petitioners that if they so desire they can have their advocate to be present at the time of conducting the polygraphic test. In case any of the petitioners expresses such a desire, the C.B.I. officers concerned shall ensure the presence of the advocate concerned when the tests are being conducted. It is made clear that the presence of the advocate concerned is being enabled only to protect the constitutional rights of the petitioner and not to enable him to interfere otherwise with the progress of the test in any other manner. 8. Carbon copies of this order will be made available immediately, if possible today itself, to the petitioners' advocate on usual terms and to the learned Public Prosecutor free of cost. Learned Public Prosecutor will ensure that the order of this court is made known to the concerned officers of the C.B.I.