ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai in M.P. No. 2083 of 2016. 2. On 24.06.2016, around 6.40 a.m., one Swathi, who was standing in the Nungambakkam Railway Station, was done to death in connection with which, the Railway Police registered a case. Later, this case was transferred to the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station and investigation is being done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam. 3. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the CCTV camera in a building near the Nungambakkam Railway Station had captured the video footage of a person whom the police suspect to be the assailant. In this connection, the police arrested one Ramkumar on 02.07.2016 and at present, he is in judicial custody. Prior to the arrest of Ramkumar, the police had seized the CCTV footage and had submitted the same to the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (jurisdictional Magistrate), where, the F.I.R. is pending. 4. The police wanted to ascertain as to whether the said Ramkumar is the person who is found in the CCTV footage. Therefore, they sought the opinion of forensic experts, who have advised the police that they need the CCTV footage of Ramkumar for forensic comparison with the available CCTV footage. 5. Under such circumstances, the police filed M.P. No. 2083 of 2016 in Cr. No. 629 of 2016 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, read with Section 54-A, Cr.P.C. for permission from the Court to videograph and photograph of Ramkumar. 6. The learned counsel for Ramkumar entered appearance and strongly opposed the application. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai allowed M.P. No. 2083 of 2016 on 28.07.2016 by a detailed order, aggrieved by which Ramkumar is before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for Ramkumar vehemently contended that when there are so many eye witnesses in the case, it is not necessary for the police to take videograph of Ramkumar and that it will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the order of the Magistrate directing that Ramkumar should be taken to the place near Nungambakkam Railway Station and videographed, is against law. He further submitted that the order of the Magistrate directing that Ramkumar should be taken to the place near Nungambakkam Railway Station and videographed, is against law. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 2 SCC 357 and contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. C. Manishankar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State fairly conceded that, that portion of the impugned order directing Ramkumar to be taken to the place near Nungambakkam Railway Station and videographed, is not sustainable and prayed for modification of the impugned order. 9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for Ramkumar does not have a material bearing on the facts of this case, because, in the said case before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the taking of voice samples from an accused is constitutionally valid. There was a conflict of view between two learned Judges on this aspect and hence, the matter has been referred before a Bench of 3 Judges. 11. Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 reads thus: 5. Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed: If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to the effect, and in that case, the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer. Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class: Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. 12. The constitutional validity of the Identification of Prisoners Act is not under challenge. 12. The constitutional validity of the Identification of Prisoners Act is not under challenge. In fact, in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others, AIR 1961 SC 1808 , the Supreme Court has held that taking of blood samples, hair, etc. cannot amount to testimonial compulsion. 13. In Selvi & Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 , the Supreme Court has held that drawal of blood samples for DNA profiling, etc. is permissible and only the polygraph test has been held to be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 14. As stated above, in the impugned order, the Magistrate has directed the Prison authorities to produce Ramkumar to the place where CCTV camera was fixed and directed taking of videograph and photograph there. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to take Ramkumar anywhere near the place of occurrence for making him re-enact the crime. The Identification of Prisoners Act was passed in the year 1920, when photography was the only technology available. Today, technology has improved by leaps and bounds and it will be an anachronism to hold that photography will not include videography. The taking of videograph per se will not make the suspect criminally liable. The videograph should have to be compared with the one already with the police by forensic experts and the evidence and report of the experts would become relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 16. The learned counsel for Ramkumar submitted that Ramkumar will be entitled to the videograph and other materials now. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, at the stage of investigation, the accused will not be entitled to any of these materials, in the light of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Selvanathan @ Raghavan and Others vs. State, 1988 LW (Crl.) 503. In fact, it is not at all necessary to even hear the objection from the accused on these aspects, inasmuch as, these are steps taken in furtherance of investigation by the police and it has to be kept in wraps. After all, the culpability of the suspect will be determined only during trial via evidence relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act and not otherwise. 18. After all, the culpability of the suspect will be determined only during trial via evidence relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act and not otherwise. 18. In view of the above discussion, the direction nos.1 to 7 issued by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in the order dated 28.07.2016 passed in M.P. No. 2083 of 2016, are set aside. 19. At present, the suspect is lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to provide necessary facilities for the Investigating Officer to take videograph, photograph and other measurements of the suspect Ramkumar in Crime No. 629 of 2016 on the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station with the help of Technical Officers in the Police Photo Section, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. This Court further directs Ramkumar to allow his measurements/photograph/videograph to be taken by the Investigating Officer at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. After taking measurements/ photograph/videograph, the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the materials before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for sending the same to the forensic experts for their opinion and report. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands ordered accordingly. Connected Crl. M.P. is closed.