Madras High Court
Balu @ Radhakrishanan vs The State Rep. By on 24 November, 2025
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.11.2025
Coram:
The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.R.C.No.2428 of 2025
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)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
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
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
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.
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
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. Therefore, the learned
counsel prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and appropriate
direction may be issued to the Trial Court to conduct local inspection of
occurrence place.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing on behalf of respondent Police submitted that the prosecution has
examined all the witnesses and closed the evidence. Now, the case has been
posted for examination of defence side witnesses. At this stage,
Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed a petition under Section 310 of Cr.P.C
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
seeking to conduct local inspection of the place of occurrence only with an
intention to drag on the trial proceedings.
6.1. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) for respondent Police that the occurrence had took place in the
year 2020 and the Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed the petition seeking to
conduct local inspection at the occurrence place after a lapse of 5 years from
the date of occurrence. Hence, there is every probability for changes have
happened in the physical features of the place where the occurrence had
took place.
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 Poultry Farm is not in
existence at present. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 claims that there was a
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.
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
6.3. That apart, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing on behalf of respondent Police drew the attention of this Court to
the Order dated 17.03.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.445 of 2025, wherein, this Court
had categorically held that the provision envisaged under Section 310 of
Cr.P.C for local inspection is only discretionary and it is not mandatory. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“5. Section 310 Cr.P.C., is not mandatory, and it confers only
discretionary power on the Presiding Officer, who deals with the case, to
visit the place of occurrence. Further, if a Presiding Officer of a Court has
got any doubt regarding the place where the alleged offence had occurred,
or any other place, it is deemed and necessary that in order to properly
appreciate the evidence, the Judge or Magistrate shall visit the place of
occurrence at any stage of the case in order to remove any ambiguity or
identification with regard to the scene of crime, and if necessary,
inspection of the scene of crime can be done after giving notice to the
parties.”
7. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for respondent Police.
8. As far as this case is concerned, the prosecution has examined all
the witnesses and the case has been posted for examination for defence side
6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
witnesses. At this stage, Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed a petition under
Section 310 of Cr.P.C seeking to conduct local inspection at the place of
occurrence.
9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that as per Section 310 of
Cr.P.C, a Judge or Magistrate can personally inspect the scene of a crime or
any other relevant location at any stage of an inquiry or trial, but, such
inspection is only subject to the discretion of said Judge or Magistrate. For
the sake of clarity, Section 310 of Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:
“310. Local Inspection. – (1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at
any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the
parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have
been committed, or any other place in which it is in his opinion necessary
to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at
such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a
memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.
(2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case
and if the prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the
case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free
of cost.”
10. In the present case, Petitioner/Accused No.1 has moved a
petition under Section 310 of Cr.P.C before the Trial Court seeking to
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
conduct a local inspection at the scene of crime. As per the provision
envisaged under Section 310 of Cr.P.C, the scene of crime can be inspected
by a Magistrate, but, the said exercise can be done only upon his/her
discretion. Therefore, Petitioner/Accused No.1 does not have any right to
insist the Court to conduct inspection at the scene of crime.
11. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of respondent Police, since the
occurrence had took place in the year 2020, there is every possibility for
changes have happened in the physical features of the place where the
occurrence took place. Therefore, it is not necessary to inspect the scene of
crime that too after a lapse of 5 years from the date of occurrence.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed
the petition filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1.
13. I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. However,
considering the life of 22 persons who were arrayed as accused in the case
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
on hand, with an intention to afford an opportunity to the accused to prove
their case, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:
(i) The Trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate who is having
more than 10 years of experience in the Bar, as a Commissioner to conduct
local inspection at the occurrence place viz., Kuttaiyaru, Thiruvathigai,
Panruti Police limit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
(ii) On such appointment, at the cost of Petitioner, the Commissioner
shall inspect the occurrence place viz., Kuttaiyaru, Thiruvathigai, Panruti
Police limit, in the presence of respondent Police and thereafter, he shall file
a detailed report along with the required documents and photographs, if any,
before this Court, within a period of one week.
14. This Criminal Revision Case shall stand disposed of with the
above directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
24.11.2025
mrr
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
Note to Registry: Issue Order Copy on 26.11.2025
To
1.I Additional District and Sessions Court,
Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Panruti,
Cuddalore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
mrr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:02 am )
