IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1421 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/04/2010 IN CRMP.1348/2010 IN MC.76/2009 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ SHAHUL HAMEED.I, S/O.M.IBRAHIMKUTTY, T.C.13/705, MRA-183, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE --------------------------------- 1. P.K.NABEESA BEEVI, D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, T.C.6/193(4), NETHAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH FOR R1 SMT.V.J.SAFEENA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHICK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. M.C. No. 1421 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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