ORDER : G.B. Shah, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Bagga, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. The present Criminal Revision Application is filed challenging the order dated 2/4/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 376 of 2014 below application Exh. 6 rejecting the said application preferred by the applicants herein under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short) for further investigation in respect of the offence alleged against the present applicants. After proceeding with the submissions, learned advocate for the applicants, producing an affidavit affirmed by himself, has submitted that as such, all the applicants-original accused are in judicial custody and therefore, he, upon instructions received from one Mr. Rakesh Mulchand Dayani, who is nephew of present applicant No. 1-original accused No. 1, has filed this affidavit and now he is restricting his submissions so far as point/ground No. 7 of the application at Exh. 6 is concerned and right now, he does not press the present Criminal Revision Application for other grounds of further investigation which has been sought by the applicants in the application at Exh. 6 and sought liberty to file an application in accordance with law as and when need arises during the stage of defense of the accused for rest of the points/grounds. In light of the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards the observation made on page 5 of the impugned order more particularly line Nos. 4, 5 and 6 which reads as under: "Therefore, the lie detection test or narco analysis test are considered to be in aid of investigation and cannot be accepted as an evidence of a particular fact." He has further submitted that except the above observations made by the trial court, so far as point/ground No. 7 of application Exh. 6 is concerned, no specific finding has been given for not allowing the narco analysis test/lie detector test as narrated in point No. 7 of application Exh. 6. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. 6 is concerned, no specific finding has been given for not allowing the narco analysis test/lie detector test as narrated in point No. 7 of application Exh. 6. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat reported in 2007(3) GLR page 2088 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 as under: "7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the petitioner is the accused. It is also important to note that the accused is demanding Brain mapping test/Brain fingerprinting to prove his innocence. Brain fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may not be many physical evidences at the crime scene, but the brain is always there recording the sequences of the crime. The basic difference between a criminal and innocent person is that the criminal has the details of the crime stored in his brain, whereas the innocent does not. In Brain fingerprinting testing, the subject is made to sit in a quiet room with sensors on his headband that measure electrical brain responses. Three types of stimuli: targets, irrelevant, and probes, in the form of words, pictures, or sounds are presented for a fraction of a second each, under computer control. Incoming stimulus that is significant and noteworthy results in a specific, electrical brain response, known as P-300, which is one aspect of a larger brain wave response known as M.E.R.M.E.R. (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response). However, determination of innocence or guilt is a legal entity rather than a scientific determination. The investigating agencies can take the results of Brain fingerprinting as an evidence along with all other available evidence to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. According to a study the accuracy rate of this test is 99.99 per cent and in U.S.A., the F.B.I. have been making use of this technique to convict criminals. 7.1 According to the petitioner he has been falsely involved in the case and he disputes recovery of weapon at his instance. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is facing serious charge of offence of murder, which is punishable with capital punishment. 7.1 According to the petitioner he has been falsely involved in the case and he disputes recovery of weapon at his instance. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is facing serious charge of offence of murder, which is punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner-accused himself volunteers for the Brain mapping test/Lie-detector test. For a fair trial all possible evidence is required to be brought on record to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. Denying any opportunity to bring on record certain evidence on the ground that the trial will be delayed would amount to denying substantial justice to an accused especially when he is facing a murder trial. On the contrary, if the Lie detector test/Brain mapping test is allowed, and if it is presumed that the said test is in his favour, that will not exonerate the petitioner-accused. The evidence is required to be considered in their totality. It cannot be said that merely on lie-detector test/Brain mapping test the petitioner-accused will be acquitted even though other evidence against him are on record. Looking to the particular facts of the case, especially when the petitioner accused specifically pleaded for Brain mapping test, I am of the view that, such an opportunity cannot be denied on the ground that the trial will be delayed. It is also required to be noted that unless it is proved that the petitioner accused is guilty, the presumption is always in his favour. Even if the Lie detector test/Brain mapping test is allowed, at the most, it may happen that the trial may be delayed by a few days. Moreover, if the test allowed, justice will be done to the petitioner and the prosecution can have no grievance about the test. 7.2 Under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, it is the fundamental right conferred on every person, including an accused to have a fair and open trial. The scope of Art. 21 has received a liberal and expansive interpretation from time to time by the Apex Court and fair trial is the essence of the fundamental right conferred to every person under the Constitution. Under the right conferred by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, if the liberty of a person is deprived otherwise according to the procedure established by law, then the Court can interfere in the matter. Under the right conferred by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, if the liberty of a person is deprived otherwise according to the procedure established by law, then the Court can interfere in the matter. 7.3 On the facts of the case, it is the case of the petitioner-accused that he has been falsely involved in the matter to save a sitting Minister/her relative. According to the petitioner a false case of discovery/recovery has been made out after a lapse of almost 10 days. Prima facie, it appears that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye- witness to the incident of murder. It is also true that there is no direct evidence against the accused involving him in the murder. The petitioner had earlier requested for Lie-detection test at the stage of investigation, but the same was not carried out. 7.4 It is required to be noted that the right of the accused to give evidence to prove his innocence not only flows from the principles of natural justice, which is now held to be a part of Arts. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, but also under Sec. 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Giving of evidence cannot be restricted only to giving of oral testimony in Court. In this century, electronic usage has been accepted in judicial dispensation. I am of the view that in a matter where it is the case of the accused that he is falsely involved, he should be permitted to give evidence in any form whether it be in the form of oral deposition before the Court or in the form of scientific nature like that of Brain-mapping test. To deprive the accused of such a right would tantamount to violation of his fundamental rights." 3. Learned APP has submitted that when the prayer has been restricted so far as point/ground No. 7 of the application at Exh. 6 is concerned, as narrated in the affidavit dated 3/5/2016, he has no objection if this Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed so far as point/ground No. 7 of application Exh. 6 is concerned. 4. I have considered the above referred submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and gone through the above referred observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far as this narco analysis test/lie detector test is concerned. 5. 6 is concerned. 4. I have considered the above referred submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and gone through the above referred observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far as this narco analysis test/lie detector test is concerned. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge has observed to the effect that lie detector test or narco analysis test is always to be in the aid of investigation and cannot be accepted as an evidence of a particular fact. For that, as such, there is no dispute but the particular fact or any fact comes after the said test is carried out by the concerned authority after following due procedure. Under the circumstances, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind, in my view, the present Criminal Revision Application deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court requires to be modified. 6. The present Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 2/4/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 376 of 2014 below application Exh. 6 is hereby modified to the effect that the investigating agency is hereby directed to carry out the investigation only so far as point/ground No. 7 of the application at Exh. 6 is concerned under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the said test, the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to produce the report of the said test before the concerned Court after following due procedure. The concerned authority is requested to carry out the procedure as early as possible after the said task is handed over by the concerned Investigating Officer. Direct service is permitted.