Vijay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the court covering all the issues framed in the suit......dismissed the application of the police. state went in revision to the sessions court. learned sessions judge has allowed the revision petition and consequently the order of the magistrate has been set aside and the prayer of the police for taking photographs of the revision petitioner granted.2. it is not in dispute that the provision 'of section 5 of the identification of prisoners' act is applicable to the fact of the case on all fours. however, the learned counsel has submitted that no rules having been framed by the state government, as per requirement of section 4 of the said act, the provision of section 5 is inapplicable. section 4 pertains to the prescription of rules by the state government only with regard to the taking of measurements of the person and not the taking of his photographs. the procedure and manner of taking the photographs is given in section 5 itself. hence, the submission is rejected.3. next submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner is that section 5 is ultra vires of article 20(3) of the constitution of india. a constitution bench of hon'ble supreme court in state of bombay v. kathi kalu oghad : 1961 crilj856 has held that the bar of clause 3 of article 20 of the constitution of india is applicable where someone accused of an offence is sought to be compelled to make a statement against himself either by a word of mouth or in writing. taking of photographs of an accused does not amount to his making a statement against himself or becoming a witness against himself, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the constitution bench of the hon'ble supreme court.4. for the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.cr. mps. no. 250 and 251 of 2007 infructuous. interim order dated 11-6-2007, passed on cr. m. p. no. .250 of 2007, stands vacated.