ORDER : K.Murali Shankar, J. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.152 of 2023 dated 15.10.2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni, allowing the petition filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. 2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Savithiri alleging sexual assault against her minor daughter, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.268 of 2022 against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences under Sections 9 (m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed the final report against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 5 (m), 6, 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(AB) IPC and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No. 152 of 2023 and is pending on the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni. 3. It is not in dispute that when the trial was in part-heard stage, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation alleging that DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) test was not at all conducted. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2022 at about 06.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant's minor daughter aged about 10 years went for tuition, the petitioner, who was working as a watchman in Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation Nursery and Primary School, intercepted the victim child in front of the said school and took the victim child to upstairs of the said school and committed an aggravated sexual assault with the victim child and on coming to know about the occurrence from the victim child, her mother lodged the police complaint. 5. 5. The prosecution case, as projected in the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., is that the Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Madurai has been examined as P.W.16 and through him, Biology and Serological Reports came to be exhibited as Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 respectively, that P.W.16 has given evidence that semen was detected on Item No.1 gauze cloth and hence, the same was forwarded to DNA Division RFSL, Madurai for DNA profiling, that they came to know about the letter of the Deputy Director of RFSL, Madurai dated 01.08.2024 that DNA typing results obtained for the Item No.1 gauze piece is kept in records of MDU/DNA/207/2022, that the prosecution has then come to know that FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) card was not at all collected from RFSL till date, that the report of the DNA in MDU/DNA/207/2022 has to be compared with the DNA of the accused, which is essential to prove the prosecution case and to arrive at correct decision of the case and that since the investigating agency has not taken steps to receive the FTA card from the Laboratory and to collect the blood samples or semen from the accused, they were constrained to file the above petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that no notice was given to the petitioner in the petition filed for further investigation and that the learned Sessions Judge, without hearing the petitioner's side and without giving any opportunity to oppose the petition for further investigation, has passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 directing further investigation. 7. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given any notice in respect to the petition in M.P.No.1 of 2024 nor was given any opportunity to oppose the said petition. 8. Considering the above fact situation, this Court has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner's side to raise objections with regard to the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. 9. 8. Considering the above fact situation, this Court has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner's side to raise objections with regard to the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the evidence of P.W.16, blood and semen were collected from the petitioner and the same was sent for chemical analysis, but without considering the above aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order, that the Scientific Report has revealed that the result of grouping test is inconclusive and the said test is in favour of the petitioner and that in order to deprive the right of defence of the petitioner, the respondent police is trying to get the scientific report in their favour and that too at the stage of examination of the investigating officer. 10. Since the trial was in part-heard stage and even according to the prosecution, many witnesses came to be examined, the trial Court should have given an opportunity to contest the petition in M.P.No.1 of 2024 but the learned Sessions Judge, considering the grounds raised by the prosecution and also taking note of the fact that blood sample of the petitioner was not collected in FTA card, has proceeded to pass the impugned order directing for collection of blood sample or semen from the petitioner in FTA card and for getting of DNA report. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), just because the petitioner was not heard in the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., that by itself is not a ground to label the impugned order as illegal. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), P.W.16 in his evidence nowhere stated that blood sample or semen was collected from the petitioner in FTA card and the same was sent for DNA analysis. According to P.W.16, DNA was extracted from Item No.1 gauze piece recovered at the place of occurrence. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), P.W.16 in his evidence nowhere stated that blood sample or semen was collected from the petitioner in FTA card and the same was sent for DNA analysis. According to P.W.16, DNA was extracted from Item No.1 gauze piece recovered at the place of occurrence. Moreover, in the report given by RFSL, Madurai, it has been specifically stated that DNA was extracted from the Item No.1 gauze piece and the sample was analyzed, that though intimation letter for collecting FTA card was sent from the Laboratory on 17.07.2023, FTA card was not collected till 31.07.2024 and that therefore DNA typing results obtained for the Item No.1 gauze piece is kept in the records of MDU/DNA/207/2022 for future comparison. After coming to know about the said report and also the evidence of P.W.16, according to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the prosecution was constrained to file the above petition. The learned Sessions Judge, by observing that the blood sample of the accused person is not collected in FTA Card and in order to find out whose semen was found in the occurrence place, it has become essential to compare the DNA extracted with the DNA of the accused person and for the said purpose, further investigation is absolutely necessary and on that ground, allowed the petition and consequently directed the SHO, Thenkarai Police Station to collect the blood sample or semen from the accused in FTA card and forward the same to RFSL, Madurai for comparison of DNA and obtain report thereof. 13. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is at loss to understand as to how the police has failed to collect FTA from the Laboratory and without getting the DNA comparison report filed the final report and more importantly, they have not taken any action despite examination of substantial number of witnesses at the trial. But considering the fact that the present case is for the offence under the POCSO Act, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, it is essential to get the DNA comparison report for arriving at a correct decision of the case. 14. But considering the fact that the present case is for the offence under the POCSO Act, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, it is essential to get the DNA comparison report for arriving at a correct decision of the case. 14. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), DNA technology becomes a powerful tool for identifying or eliminating suspects and it can provide definitive proof for a person's involvement in a crime as DNA evidence is considered to be 99% accurate, but at the same time, no doubt, it cannot be construed as a conclusive proof. 15. As already pointed out, it is pertinent to note that the investigating agency has not collected the FTA card from the Laboratory and hence, the question of collecting blood samples of the petitioner in FTA card does not arise. Considering the above and taking note of the evidence of P.W.16-Scientific Expert and the report of the Deputy Director of RFSL, Madurai, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the petition. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cannot be compelled to give blood samples and the impugned order directing the SHO to collect blood sample or semen from the petitioner in FTA card cannot legally be sustained. 17. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the following passages in the case of M.Muthukumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai and another passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6279 of 2017 dated 28.09.2018, wherein, the decision of this Court in Saranya Vs. State, by the Inspector of Police reported in 2016 (6) CTC 503 was referred:- “55. From a conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the source of power for a criminal Court to subject a witness and her child to DNA analysis flows from Section 91 read with the second limb of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the Evidence Act. ... 57. In the case at hand, it is not the paternity of the child that is in issue. The issue before this Court is whether Manikandan [A1] has committed an offence under the POCSO Act. The issue of legitimacy would only be incidentally involved. ... 57. In the case at hand, it is not the paternity of the child that is in issue. The issue before this Court is whether Manikandan [A1] has committed an offence under the POCSO Act. The issue of legitimacy would only be incidentally involved. One has to see the picture on a larger canvas and if so seen, there can be no doubt that the harm that would befall the administration of criminal justice is far greater, if witnesses like "X" and her child cannot be subjected to DNA profiling. The harm that would befall if such a power is not recognised in the trial Court will be far greater, because it will be easier for people to prey upon minor girls from downtrodden communities like predators and force them to turn turtle in the witness box. There is, therefore, an eminent need to subject "X" and her child to DNA profiling in order to arrive at the truth. 14.It is sufficiently clear from the above judgments that DNA profiling of an accused person will not amount to testimonial compulsion. That has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1961 itself in State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu Oghad, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 and which was subsequently, followed in Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2010(7) SCC 263 . It is for this purpose, Section 53 of CrPC has been suitably amended and Section 53A has been introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from 23.06.2006 to take care of the need to draw blood samples from the accused. Therefore it will be too late in the day for the petitioner to raise a ground of self-incrimination. 15.The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and another, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2295 , is also not sustainable in view of the fact that the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court have virtually watered down the said judgment and expanding the scope of DNA profiling by propounding ?eminent need? Test. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the judgment of the Supreme Court Goutam Kundu's case is unsustainable. Test. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the judgment of the Supreme Court Goutam Kundu's case is unsustainable. 16.Now that the case is pending before the Court below, the Court below also has the right to direct the petitioner to undergo DNA test.” 18. Considering the legal position above referred, the objections raised by the petitioner's side, cannot legally be sustained. 19. Viewing from any angle, the impugned order directing for further investigation with regard to DNA test cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni, the respondent police is directed to complete the entire process within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.