SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. NABEESA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Crl.P.C. as per which a Judicial Magistrate alone can be 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 Section 284 Crl.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.