Santosh Duggal ( 1 ) MR. Sharma argued that besides the provisions of S. 54 Cr. P. C. being very clear; there have been directions given by the Supreme Court that even in cases where accused does not make any such prayer, it was the duty of the court where such an accused is produced, particularly when he is unassisted by a counsel to inform him of his right to have medical examination and then proceed to direct medical examination in case any accused makes such a request. He cited judgment in the case of Sheela Barse vs. State 1983 Crimes 602 (S. C.), where their Lordships taking notice of number of matters of procedure, concerning treatment of undertrial prisoners, had incorporated a clear cut direction in the judgment to this effect. ( 2 ) MR. Khan did not offer any comments in face of the mandate contained in the Supreme Court judgment. He however confirmed that it was in fact a practice with number of Metropolitan Magistrates where such requests when made are being declined and it is a fit matter where some directions for general guidance of all the Metropolitan Magistrates are issued. ( 3 ) A reading of S. 54 Cr. P. C. makes it abundantly clear that whenever a person after being arrested is produced before a Magistrate and alleges at any time during the period of his detention during custody that the examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence or which will establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless the Magistrate considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or far defeating the ends of justice. (emphasis supplied), ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the application of the petitioner in this case did not disclose with what object he was seeking his medical examination, or whether it fell within the purview of either of the two situations contemplated by S. 54 Cr. (emphasis supplied), ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the application of the petitioner in this case did not disclose with what object he was seeking his medical examination, or whether it fell within the purview of either of the two situations contemplated by S. 54 Cr. P. C. , but the fact remains that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in examining the body of accused person himself and then dismissing the application on his observation that they were seen in normal postures was wholly unwarranted and erroneous. He does not spell out as to how medical examination would have defeated the ends of justice. The order under consideration is thus glaringly in violation of the spirit and essence of the provisions of S. 54 Cr. P. C. Hence interference by this Court in exercise of the power u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. is certainly called for. ( 5 ) I accordingly allow the petition and hold the order dt. 3. 2. 89 as not sustainable. Further, in view of the general importance of the matter, and the likelihood of such error being committed by other courts, which apprehension was confirmed by the learned State counsel, I direct that a copy of this order be circulated for the guidance of all Metropolitan Magistrates. I also consider it essential that directions of the Supreme Court in case of Sheela Barse (supra.) in this regard are reproduced in this order, for general guidance of all concerned. These are accordingly extracted as under : " (VII) We would direct that the magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced shall enquire from the arrested person whether he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody and inform him that he has right u/s. 54 Cr P. C. , 1973 to be medically examined. We are aware that S. 54 Cr. P. C. 1973 undoubtedly provides for examination of an arrested person by a medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person and it is a right conferred on the arrested person. But, very often the arrested person is not aware of this right and on account of his ignorance, he is unable to exercise this right even though he may have been tortured or maltreated by the police in police lock up. But, very often the arrested person is not aware of this right and on account of his ignorance, he is unable to exercise this right even though he may have been tortured or maltreated by the police in police lock up. It is for this reason that we are giving a specific direction requiring the magistrate to inform the arrested person about this right of medical examination in case he has any complaint of torture of maltreatment in police custody. "