1. An article published in 1961 [Andre A.

Moenssens, `Narcoanalysis in Law Enforcement', 52(4)

The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 453-458 (Nov.- Dec. 1961)] had
surveyed some judicial precedents from the U.S.A. which dealt with the forensic uses of the
narcoanalysis technique. The first reference is to a decision from the State of Missouri reported
as State v. Hudson, 314 Mo. 599 (1926) In that case The trial court had refused to admit the
doctor's testimony by finding it to be completely unreliable from a scientific viewpoint. The
appellate court upheld the finding and made the following observation, Id. at p. 602:

"Testimony of this character - barring the sufficient fact that it cannot be classified otherwise than a self-
serving declaration - is, in the present state of human knowledge, unworthy of serious consideration. We
are not told from what well this serum is drawn or in what alembic its alleged truth compelling powers
are distilled.

Its origin is as nebulous as its effect is uncertain”. ...

2. In State v. Lindemuth, 56 N.M. 237 (1952) The trial court's refusal to admit such testimony was
endorsed by the appellate court, and it was noted, Id. at p. 243:

"Until the use of the drug as a means of procuring the truth from people under its

influence is accorded general scientific recognition, we are unwilling to enlarge the

already immense field where medical experts, apparently equally qualified, express

such diametrically opposed views on the same facts and conditions, to the despair of

the court reporter and the bewilderment of the fact- finder."

Similar numerous decisions in the court has been established which questioned the scientific accuracy of
the narco analysis test in the survey and this conclusion has been draw form

- The Model Guidelines for Foster Care given by the Ministry of Women and Child
development clearly states that is the reposnisblity of the foster parents to
- “Respect the privacy of the child and his biological family, and acknowledge that any
information provided about them is confidential and is not to be disclosed to another
party without prior consent”. therefore, the prior consent of the foster child and the
biological parents is of atmost important, the court cannot compel a minor who is not
a party to the suit to undergo the DNA test….issue 3 petitioner EXTRA