V. Ramkumar, J.

1. The first of the revisions is filed by the State and the other revision is filed by the de facto complainant. In both the revisions the order challenged is the very same order dated 27/06/2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, in CMP No. 2264 of 2008 in CC 523 of 2008.

2. Sr. Advocate Sri. P. G. Thambi, the learned Director General of Prosecutions who is also the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, made the following submissions before me:

The video capsules, the compact discs and the audio cassettes will have to be read in evidence by playing the same in Court or by getting the contents of the cassettes transcribed into writings for a better appreciation and evaluation of those electronic documents. The whole process, if permitted will take only two hours and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was wrong in not allowing the request made by the Special Public Prosecutor in the above case. It was on the request made by Sri. Jacob Punnoos, the Addl. Director General of Police that the State has filed this Revision.

3. Advocate Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant / petitioner in Crl. RP No. 2308 of