IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Balu @ Radhakrishnan

Petitioner(s)

Vs

The State rep. By

The Inspector of Police

Panruti,

Cuddalore,

Cr.no.346/2020

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratab

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned“ at the

instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical error

has been crept in paragraph No.6.2 of the order dated 24.11.2025. The said

paragraph No.6.2 is to be replaced as follows:

“6.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing on behalf of respondent police submitted that after the filing of aforesaid petition by the petitioner / accused No.1, the respondent police has locally inspected the scene of crime and found that the no Poultry Farm is not in existence at present. The petitioner / accused No.1 claims that there was no poultry farm near the place of 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 paragraph No.6.2. quoted above and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.

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

08-12-2025 pvs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. The Inspector of Police Panruti, Cuddalore

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

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

pvs

2025

08-12-2025 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 date