<p><br />After hearing the arguments on the petition, pending in the court since March 24, the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate K Sudhakar reserved his orders for July 9.<br /><br />Earlier, the defence counsels represented by senior lawyers Padmanabh Reddy, Prakash Reddy and Nalin Kumar argued that there was no need for any scientific test as their clients have already been thoroughly interrogated during custody of the investigating agency and charge sheet was filed after a probe.</p>.<p>They further contended that the statements of their clients after conducting scientific test cannot be used against them as per the constitutional rights provided under Article 20 (2) and (3).</p>.<p>The CBI's deputy legal advisor B Ravindranath informed the court that the scientific test is very important and it would further help the investigating agency to find out the truth of the scam as the accused have exclusive knowledge about the diversion of funds and other details. </p>.<p>He said the test cannot be a statement of the accused, it was only a test to read the pulse of the accused to find out whether the particular person is giving correct answers to the questions of the examiner.</p>.<p>Moreover, the test would not be conducted by the CBI personnel, it would be conducted in the presence of doctors and only a questionnaire would be prepared by the investigating agency.</p>.<p>Ravindranath said when the statements of the accused were not used as their statements, the question of constitutional protection under article 20 (2) and 3) doest not arise. </p>
<p><br />After hearing the arguments on the petition, pending in the court since March 24, the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate K Sudhakar reserved his orders for July 9.<br /><br />Earlier, the defence counsels represented by senior lawyers Padmanabh Reddy, Prakash Reddy and Nalin Kumar argued that there was no need for any scientific test as their clients have already been thoroughly interrogated during custody of the investigating agency and charge sheet was filed after a probe.</p>.<p>They further contended that the statements of their clients after conducting scientific test cannot be used against them as per the constitutional rights provided under Article 20 (2) and (3).</p>.<p>The CBI's deputy legal advisor B Ravindranath informed the court that the scientific test is very important and it would further help the investigating agency to find out the truth of the scam as the accused have exclusive knowledge about the diversion of funds and other details. </p>.<p>He said the test cannot be a statement of the accused, it was only a test to read the pulse of the accused to find out whether the particular person is giving correct answers to the questions of the examiner.</p>.<p>Moreover, the test would not be conducted by the CBI personnel, it would be conducted in the presence of doctors and only a questionnaire would be prepared by the investigating agency.</p>.<p>Ravindranath said when the statements of the accused were not used as their statements, the question of constitutional protection under article 20 (2) and 3) doest not arise. </p>