JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.(Oral):- Heard. 2. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dated 28th August, 2000. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief may be noticed thus. 3. It appears, Paras Ram, minor, filed an application through her mother Dilli Devi under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the grant of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month on the grounds that applicant Paras Ram was illegitimate child of the present petitioner Hardayal, who was conceived who his mother Smt. Dilli Devi was raped by him. 4. The claim was resisted by Hardayal denying the paternity of the child and also that he ever committed rape with the mother of the applicant Paras Ram. Though it was admitted that a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him, but he was acquitted of the charge. 5. Learned trial Magistrate after recording the evidence, concluded that the applicants mother has not been able to prove that applicant was conceived from the loins of Hardayal. 6. Dis-satisfied, petitioner carried a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, and moved an application under Section 311. of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence, to prove the paternity of Hardayal, by ordering that applicant Paras Ram, his mother Smt. Dilli Devi and Hardayal be subjected to D.N.A. test which will clinch the entire controversy between the parties". This application was opposed by Hardayal on the grounds that the parties cannot be subjected to any D.N.A. test without their consent and he does not want to give his consent. 7. Aggrieved, Hardayal has filed this revision petition. 8. I have heared learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. It transpires that learned Sessions Judge without referring to the objections filed by Hardayal allowed this application on the grounds that it would facilitate the administration of justice to arrive at just conclusion as to the paternity of the minor petitioner, the order reads as follows : 28.8.2000 Present :Sh. S.K. Khanna Id. Counsel for the applicant. Sh. O.D. Thakur, Id. counsel for the respondent. Heard on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Applicant in the application has prayed for obtaining DNA test report to prove paternity of the minor petitioner. Minor petitioner Paras Ram through mother approached the Id. S.K. Khanna Id. Counsel for the applicant. Sh. O.D. Thakur, Id. counsel for the respondent. Heard on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Applicant in the application has prayed for obtaining DNA test report to prove paternity of the minor petitioner. Minor petitioner Paras Ram through mother approached the Id. trial Magistrate for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. and the application stands dismissed by concluding that minor petitioner was not illegitimate son of the respondent. Against this dismissal revision is directed which pending in this Court. In this revision present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is filed to prove paternity on basis of DNA test of the minor petitioner. Application if allowed would tend to help the administration of justice and to arrive at just conclusion as to paternity of the minor petitioner. Hence, in the interest of justice the application is allowed. For such DNA test and taking blood sample parties, i.e. petitioner, his mother and respondent to appear in person in the Court on next date. Petitioner also to file reasonable test charges. Put up on 18.9.2000 Sd/- (T.N. Vaidya) Sessions Judge, Kullu. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Hardayal referring to Smt. Nin-gamma and another v. Chikkatah and another AIR 2000 Karnataka 50 and Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and another AIR 1993 SC 2295 submits that petitioner Hardayal cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test without his consent as it would be volatile of Article 21 of the Constitution, more so, when there is no provision either in the Evidence Act or Code of Criminal Procedure to compel a person to undergo such a test. 11. In Goutam Kundu after referring to the relevant law for compelling a party to undergo medical test it was held by the Apex court that courts in India cannot order blood test, as a matter of course, in particular no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. In other words, a person or a party to a proceeding cannot be compelled to be subjected to a medical test without his or her consent. In England as also in United States, it was noticed, there are special statutes governing the law relating to medical examination to determine the parentage in cases which involve disputed paternity or maternity. In India there is no such statute. In England as also in United States, it was noticed, there are special statutes governing the law relating to medical examination to determine the parentage in cases which involve disputed paternity or maternity. In India there is no such statute. Neither the Criminal Procedure Code: "The blood grouping test is a perfect test to determine questions of disputed paternity of a child and can be relied upon by Courts as a circumstantial evidence. But no person can be compelled to give a sample of blood for blood grouping test against his will and no adverse inference can be drawn against him for this refusal." 12. In Goutam Kundu their Lordships in para - 18 observed thus: "18. Blood grouping test is a useful test to determine the question of disputed paternity. It can be relied upon by courts as a circumstantial evidence which ultimately excludes a certain individual as a father of the child. However, it required to be carefully noted no person can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against her will and no adverse inference can be drawn against her for this refusal." (Emphasis supplied) 13. Viewed in the light of the authorities discussed above, the conclusion I is that no one can be compelled to undergo a medical test for the purpose of f determining the paternity without his consent. 14. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, thus, cannot be up held and is liable to be set aside. 15. In result, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dated 28th August, 2000 is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge shall decide the revision petition pending before him on merits and in accordance with law. 16. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, on 20th March, 2001. Cr. M.P. No. 287 of 2000 17. In view of the order passed in the main matter, no order is required to be passed in this application. The application stands disposed of. -