over to court. Learned counsel for the applicant filed further papers in reply and both counsel made further oral submissions thereafter. [3] Learned counsel for the respondent initially objected on the grounds that the application was not in conformity with section 30 B (8) of the CPC. This court made order that the applicant bring his application into conformity with section 30 B (8) of the Code. Learned counsel for the applicant did so and filed an application thereafter with affidavits as required by the said section. It appears learned counsel for the respondent objects to the fact that the same case number was given to this application but this objection has no bearing on the application as this is an administrative function of court and has nothing to do with the application per se. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the new notice of motion is flawed as it does not disclose who the parties are but on a reading of the motion there is specific mention as to who the applicant and respondent are. The fact that the application has been made on paper belonging to the State has already been explained by learned State Counsel and the explanation is acceptable to court and as no material prejudice has been caused to the respondent on any of the aforementioned grounds, it cannot be said that the application is fatally flawed and should therefore be dismissed. [4] It is the contention of the respondent as set out in his formal objections that he has already given two sets of finger prints and that the 2nd set of prints were taken for forensic purposes. It is his contention that the 3rd set of finger prints is being obtained to “frame” him. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the first set of finger prints were not properly taken and were destroyed in the presence of the respondent and thereafter a fresh set of finger prints were taken not for forensic purposes and now the applicant moves court for another set of finger prints for forensic purposes. [5] It is learned counsel for the applicant’s contention that it is not possible to “frame” the respondent since prints that are recorded cannot be re-applied to an exhibit. The respondent’s complaint of being framed is on record and it would be a matter for this court to decide the truth of the allegation at the appropriate time. It is too premature at this stage to come to a finding in regard to this issue but his contemporaneous complaint made has been noted. It is apparent that his allegation is that named officers of the NDEA 2