IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1421 of 2010()
1. SHAHUL HAMEED.I, S/O.M.IBRAHIMKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.NABEESA BEEVI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
* * * *V.*RAMKUMAR,*J.* * * *
*Crl.*M.C.*No.* * * * *of *2010*
* * * *1421*
* * *
Dated, this the 5th day of* July, 2010
* * * * * * *
ORDER
Petitioner who is the sole respondent in M.C. No. 76/09
on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvananthapuram in a proceeding under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 sought a direction
to the court below to issue an Advocate Commission for his
cross-examination. The said application was dismissed by the
learned Magistrate as per Annexure C order dated 12-4-2010
in C.M.P. No.1348 of 2010.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/applicant.
3. An Advocate Commission cannot be appointed for
the examination of a witness by resort to Sections 284 and
285 of Cr.P.C. as per which a Judicial Magistrate alone can be
Crl. M.C. No. 1421 of 2010 2
appointed for the examination of a party on commission.
Merely because the petitioner claims to be an Advocate
practicing in the courts at Thiruvananthapuram, he cannot
invoke Sec. 284 Cr.P.C. for his examination on commission.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first
respondent was permitted to be examined in camera and the
petitioner also may be extended similar benefit since he is an
advocate practicing in the courts at Thiruvananthapuram. I
see no reason why the said request should not be granted.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of permitting the
examination of the petitioner herein in camera in case the
petitioner makes such a request before the Magistrate.
Incidentally, the learned Magistrate shall adhere to the time
limit fixed by the order dated 15-2-2010 passed by this Court
in Crl.M.C.No. 3829 of 2009. In case the Magistrate finds it
difficult to stick to the time fixed by this Court, he may apply
for enlargement of time.
Dated this the 5th day of July 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)
Crl. M.C. No. 1421 of 2010 2