occurrence, but, now, the said place remains to be a vacant place. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct a local inspection at the scene of crime at this point of time.”

3. Registry is directed to incorporate the above paragraph No.6.2. quoted above and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.

4. In other respects, the order dated 24.11.2025 shall remain unaltered.

28-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri Note: Issue order copy by 02.12.2025.

To

1.State rep by the Inspector of Police Panruti Cuddalore.

Cr.No.346/2020

2.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri

2025

28-11-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.11.2025 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI and Crl.M.P.No.21812 of 2025 Balu @ Radhakrishanan ...Petitioner Versus The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Panruti, Cuddalore.

Crime No.346 of 2020 ...Respondent This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in S.C.No.168 of 2023 dated 01.11.2025 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to secure the ends of justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 01.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in S.C.No.168 of 2023 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The Petitioner is Accused No.1 in S.C.No.168 of 2023 which is pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. During trial, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and closed the evidence. Now, the Trial Court has adjourned the case to 26.11.2025 for examination of defence side witnesses. Under these circumstances, Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in S.C.No.168 of 2023 under Section 310 of Cr.P.C seeking to conduct local inspection at the place of occurrence Kuttaiyaru, Thiruvathigai, Panruti Police limit.

3. On 01.11.2025, when the said petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of respondent Police made the following submissions:

(i) After a lapse of 5 years from the date of occurrence, seeking such inspection to find existence of lighting at the occurrence place cannot be sustained;

(ii) Further, the trial had commenced and is at the stage of arguments; (iii) Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this petition only to drag on the trial proceedings.

(iv) In Judgment dated 17.03.2025 in Criminal Revision Case No.445 of 2025, the Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a similar petition for local inspection filed before the POCSO Court by holding that the said provision in the Criminal Procedure Code is only discretionary.

4. However, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore vide Order dated 01.11.2025, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in S.C.No.168 of 2023 by observing as follows:

“I am of the considered opinion that this petition filed on the side of the accused at this juncture that is after nearly five years where there is every possibility for change in the structure of the place itself, such inspection is unwarranted and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.”

5. The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that that as per the Observation Mahazar, there is no light in the place of occurrence and agricultural lands are situated surrounding the area. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that they have seen the incident due to electric light nearby Poultry Farm, but, actually, there is no Poultry Fair near the place of occurrence. Hence, it is necessary to conduct a local inspection in the place of occurrence. If such inspection is not conducted, prejudice would be caused to Petitioner/Accused No.1. Th