TOJAN Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 265/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Muvattupuzha. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in that calendar case filed C.M.P. No. 916/2011 for permission to examine the investigating officer by issue of a commission under Section 284 Cr.P.C., since the investigating officer is unable to attend the court and tender evidence due to his physical ailment. That petition was dismissed on the ground that the investigating officer is not a material witness and if such examination is ordered, that would delay the disposal of the case further. I have heard the parties.

(2.) I am of opinion that insofar as the Assistant Public Prosecutor wants to examine the investigating officer to prove the case of the State, it is only appropriate that permission is granted for examining him as a witness. Insofar as the investigating officer is stated to be bed -ridden, it is only appropriate to invoke Section 284 Cr.P.C. for examining the investigating officer through an advocate commissioner. Accordingly, the order dated 27.3.2012 in C.M.P. No. 916/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Muvattupuzha is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to permit examination of the investigating officer through an advocate commissioner appointed under Section 284 Cr.PC.