JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 2. Accused-petitioner-Imichand faced trial under section 420 IPC before the learned Magistrate. On completion of prosecution evidence his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and then the accused was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. The accused- petitioner thought it proper to examine himself as a witness and he was so examined. Then other witnesses were also produced on his behalf and the case was finally heard by learned Magistrate. He reserved the case for judgment on the date on which the judgment was to be pronounced, he passed the impugned order by which he again examined the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of his own statement recorded as defence witness wherein he had denied putting his thumb impression on the document in question. Learned Magistrate following a very strange procedure like a zealous prosecutor took thumb impression of accused on some papers and sent them for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that u/Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India there is a guarantee that nobody can be made a witness against himself. He submitted that there is an exception to it and i.e. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that too is done when the case is under investigation by the police. He submitted that the learned Magistrate had no such power to take thumb impression of the accused and send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Was not able to support the order/action of the learned Magistrate. 5. Learned Magistrate was definitely in error when he committed this illegality thinking himself to be the sole guardian of law. He should remember that he has to act according to the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When once the accused had denied the allegations of the-prosecution in his defence, the Magistrate should not have acted in hot haste without seeing law as to what he was going to do. He had heard final arguments and should have decided the case on the basis of evidence which both the parties had led. When once the accused had denied the allegations of the-prosecution in his defence, the Magistrate should not have acted in hot haste without seeing law as to what he was going to do. He had heard final arguments and should have decided the case on the basis of evidence which both the parties had led. He instead adopted a strange procedure of obtaining thumb impression of the accused petitioner without any application either on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the defence. Of course a Magistrate has powers under section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine an accused at any stage of the trial but at that time what he is required is that he has to ask the accused to explain the circumstances which are found against him from the prosecution evidence and not to adopt such a procedure which is illegal and prejudicial to an accused. 6. I am not able to understand as to why, when the case was under investigation, police did not obtain the thumb impression of the accused in order to send the same for comparison. This job was performed by the Magistrate illegally at the time after the case was finally heard by him. 7. I disapprove the act of the learned Magistrate and set aside the action taken by him by allowing this petition by quashing the order dated 25.9.1999 and direct that learned Magistrate should decide the case on the basis of record which was available in the file on 22.9.1999. I further direct that an explanation of Shri Chhotu Lal, R.J.S., who was Judicial Magistrate, Vijay Nagar on 25.9.1999 be obtained as to how and under what law he has passed such an illegal order. His explanation be put up before me within a month's time.The petition stands allowed.Petition allowed. *******