ORDER Per R. REGUPATHI, J. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai has passed an order, directing the petitioner, who is the father of one Sivaraman, to appear before the Assistant Director of Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Chennai on 26.12.2005 for DNA test, in Cr.M.P.No. 1873 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005. Aggrieved against the order, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed. 2. The son of the petitioner by name Sivaraman was missing from 1998 and a case in Cr.No.536/2000 was registered for 174 Cr.P.C. as man missing by Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai on 4.4.2000. The case was during December-2003 transferred to CB CID. The local police and CB CID investigated the case for about three years, but whereabouts of Sivaraman could not be traced and ascertained. Under such circumstances, the case was transferred to CBI by the orders of the High Court, Madras dated 21.12.2004 made in Crl.O.P.No.24092/2004. Subsequently, the offence was altered into one of Sections 120(b) r/w 365 and 364 IPC and the investigation is pending. 3. The person missing is the first and elder son of the petitioner. The petitioner made preparations to perform the marriage of another son by name Raja who was younger and born through second wife. There was a quarrel between the petitioner and Sivaraman in this regard. Under such circumstances, Sivaraman was last seen alive during September-1998 with the company of the petitioner and subsequently he was missing. Thereafter, the marriage of the younger son of the petitioner was performed during November-1998. In the wedding invitation it was mentioned that Sivaraman was in Singapore. 4. During the course of the investigation, it came to light that a person was done to death during September-1998 and a case was registered in Cr.No.545/1998 by the Chinnamanoor Police Station and the same was closed as un-detected. During the course of investigation of the present case, as per the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, the dead body connected in Cr.No. 545/1998, was exhumed on 5.10.2005 and bones of the body were despatched to Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Lab for DNA test. Thereafter a petition has been filed by the CBI before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, to fix the identity of the dead body, resulting in the issuance of the order mentioned above. 5. Thereafter a petition has been filed by the CBI before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, to fix the identity of the dead body, resulting in the issuance of the order mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-police with a mala fide intention to implicate the petitioner as one of the accused in the case filed the present petition; that it is violative of the constitutional rights of the petitioner under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India; that the conclusion reached by CBI that Sivaraman is not alive is baseless; that the petition has been filed without citing any provision of law; that there is no clinching evidence to show that the dead body is that of the son of the petitioner and the DNA test is not a conclusive proof; that the result of the DNA may be wrongly applied in the present case to falsely implicate the petitioner as an accused; that on account of that a great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 6.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the petition has been filed only for the purpose of fixing paternity of the exhumed dead body. Certain materials have been collected to substantiate that the son of the petitioner was last seen with the company of the petitioner and that there was a quarrel between him and the petitioner with regard to the arrangement of the marriage of his second wife’s son. Moreover, the place where the dead body buried was nearer to the residence of the accused-3 in this case and he is absconding. Though the bones of the body have been recovered, the identity of the body could be fixed only by way of conducting DNA test with the petitioner. The apprehension raised by the petitioner is imaginary and it has to be rejected since the investigation was transferred to the respondent by an order passed by the High Court, Madras. Even before a conclusion could be arrived at, casting aspersion on the respondent-police is not bona fide. The DNA test has been globally acknowledged and such a test is conducted world over to fix the identity of a person through paternity. It has been proved that this is one of the conclusive test in this regard. Merely by submitting for a DNA test, it cannot be claimed that the petitioner will be prejudiced. The DNA test has been globally acknowledged and such a test is conducted world over to fix the identity of a person through paternity. It has been proved that this is one of the conclusive test in this regard. Merely by submitting for a DNA test, it cannot be claimed that the petitioner will be prejudiced. After subjecting himself for a DNA test and after receiving an opinion of the DNA test, the petitioner can agitate his right. Instead of the petitioner co-operating with the investigation, he is a stumbling block for the progress of the investigation. The DNA test required for the identification of a dead body and the learned Magistrate is well within his power to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to subject him for DNA test. 7. It is apparent that when the investigation is pending from 1998 onwards the petitioner should have come forward with an anxiety to find out the whereabouts of his son and the assailants involved in the offence. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, who is none other than the father of the missing person, is not only refusing to co-operate with the investigation but protracting the proceeding in spite of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate fixing the date. The test may be conducted and concluded within a day. The refusal on the part of the petitioner creates great doubt on the petitioner himself. 8. The respondent-police is bound to take all possible efforts to find out the truth and when there is a doubt that the dead body may be of the son of the petitioner, since he is missing from September 1998, such a doubt must be eliminated. Later on the respondent-police should not be blamed for this. The contention of the petitioner that this could be proved by conducting DNA test for other relatives and if he is subjected to such a test he will be prejudiced, only shows the fear in the mind of the petitioner. If necessary, the respondent may receive DNA opinion for others also. At this stage, I am unable to understand that why the petitioner is entertaining a doubt over the bona fide of the respondent-police. The petitioner cannot claim immunity on one reason or other. 9. If necessary, the respondent may receive DNA opinion for others also. At this stage, I am unable to understand that why the petitioner is entertaining a doubt over the bona fide of the respondent-police. The petitioner cannot claim immunity on one reason or other. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a case reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 : 1961 (2) Crl.L.J. 856 (SC) (State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad) and contended that an accused person cannot be compelled to subject himself for medical examination and if so, it will be a violation of the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. By citing the judgement reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 : 1980 SCC (Crl) 465: 1980 (2) SCC 565 (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab) It is contended that subjecting a person for such a test may amount to depriving the petitioner of his personal liberty and the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. Again he relied on the case reported in 2004 MLJ (Crl) 492 (Orissa High Court) (Narinder Singh Bogarh v. State of Punjab) and contended that the impugned order directing the petitioner to subject himself for DNA test is unsustainable in law. 10.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI relied on a case reported in 1976 Crl. L.J. 1680 (Allahabad High Court) (Jamshed v. State of U.P.) and contended that subjecting an accused for the DNA test will not amount to testimonial compulsion. Again he relied on the judgement reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 939 (Rajasthan High Court) (Swati Lodha v. State of Rajasthan), wherein it has been held as follows: "Giving of blood sample does not amount to imparting knowledge by the accused in respect of relevant facts by means of Court statements or statements in writing. A blood in a human being, in spite of efforts, cannot be concealed and cannot change its intrinsic character. A blood sample by itself, is no testimony at all being wholly innocuous. It is only material for comparison, in order to lend assurance to the Court that an inference based on other pieces of evidence is relevant. Consequently, taking of blood from the veins of an accused, does not amount to compelling an accused person to be a witness against himself. It is only material for comparison, in order to lend assurance to the Court that an inference based on other pieces of evidence is relevant. Consequently, taking of blood from the veins of an accused, does not amount to compelling an accused person to be a witness against himself. There is thus no violation of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution." For similar submission he relied on the judgment reported in 1992 Crl.L.J.1554 (Allahabad High Court) (Nawal Kishore Shukla v. State of U.P.). 11. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record and precedents cited by both the parties. The investigation has not been concluded in the present case. Investigation includes collection of materials to come to a correct conclusion. An officer, who is in charge of the investigation, is entitled to collect incriminating materials including physical examination of the accused in question. The Courts have got power to issue such a direction. It has been stated in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. that a Court while releasing a person on bail may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary "(c) otherwise in the interest of justice". The present petition has been filed by invoking inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and prayer made in the petition is to set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. The language of Section 482 reads as follows: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." Section 53(1) of Cr.P.C. has given ample power to the investigating officer in this regard. Section 53(1) reads as follows: "When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose." Section 54 of Cr.P.C. equally gives liberty to an accused person to subject himself for a medical examination so that the report to be received, will afford evidence which will disprove the commission of offence by him. 12. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended that there is no provision at all in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 subjecting a person for medical examination. The DNA evidence is now a predominant forensic technique for identifying criminals when biological tissues are left behind at the scene of crime. The DNA testing on samples such as saliva, skin, bone, blood, hair or semen helps to come to a correct conclusion. It is a conclusive technology which proves one way or the other. 13. The Honourable Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2003 SC 3450 : 2003(4) SCC 493 (Sharda v. Dharmpal) has elaborately discussed the reliability of the DNA test, subjecting a person for medical examination, and whether it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India etc., ultimately it has been held as follows: "76. If the respondent avoids such medical examination on the ground that it violates his/her right to privacy or for that matter right to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then it may in most of such cases become impossible to arrive at a conclusion. It may render the very grounds on which divorce is permissible nugatory. It may render the very grounds on which divorce is permissible nugatory. Therefore, when there is no right to privacy specifically conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and with the extensive interpretation of the phrase “personal liberty” this right has been read into Article 21, it cannot be treated as an absolute right. Paras - 77 & 78 ... 79. If despite an order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference would be made out. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act also enables a Court to draw an adverse inference if the party does not produce the relevant evidences in his power and possession". It has been concluded by the Apex Court that passing of such an order by the Court would not be violative of the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Assistant Director of Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Chennai for DNA test, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, after intimating the date to the respondent.