Judgment :- K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J. Petitioner is the accused person in C.C. No. 442/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-1 Punalur. It is a case instituted by the 2nd respondent alleging an offence under S.500 IPC. 2. Petitioner/ accused is the wife of the 2nd respondent's brother who is working abroad. It appears that while her husband was abroad and had no access, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. The complaint is filed stating that the petitioner/ accused and members of her family gave currency to a news that the second respondent was responsible for the pregnancy. It is stated that the petitioner/ accused claimed so in a notice sent to the second respondent also. In order to prove that he is not the father of the child, the second respondent offered to subject himself to a D.N. A. test and wanted the petitioner to produce the child also to undergo the test. He also offered to meet the expenses for the purpose. The second respondent filed C.M.P. No. 7967/97 praying for an order directing the petitioner/ accused to produce the child for the DNA test. The learned Magistrate has allowed the prayer permitting the second respondent to undergo the DNA test at his own expense and direct the petitioner to produce the child to undergo the test on sufficient notice specifying the date fixed for the purpose. The order is challenged in this petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. 3. It is contended for the petitioner that the Court cannot compel the petitioner to produce the child for undergoing the DNA test. From the submissions made at the Bar it appears that it is not necessary to take the child to Hyderabad where the facility is available to undergo the test. It is sufficient to take blood sample and send it for examination. 4. In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418) the Supreme Court has categorically held that no person shall be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against his/her will and no adverse inference can be drawn against him/her for this refusal. Though the circumstances obtained in that case were different, the law laid down is applicable to this case also. Though the circumstances obtained in that case were different, the law laid down is applicable to this case also. So, it is not possible to compel the petitioner to produce the child for taking blood sample for the DNA test and no adverse inference is also possible on account of such refusal. However, the Magistrate can take note of the fact that 2nd respondent/ complainant has offered to undergo the test at his own expenses. In the light of what is stated above, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate to produce the child for undergoing the DNA test is hereby set aside.